“Dysfunctional Leadership in a Time of Crisis”

“Dysfunctional Leadership in a Time of Crisis”

Eric Flamholtz

Professor Emeritus, Anderson School of Management, UCLA, and

President and Founder, Management Systems

There are many different facets of the harm and problems being caused by the Covid-19 Virus. I will leave the health issues to the health professionals and deal with the economic and organizational ramifications.

“Dysfunctional Leadership”

The greatest economic and organizational problem of the Covid-19 Virus is a failure of effective leadership. This can be termed “Dysfunctional Leadership.”

Nature of “Dysfunctional Leadership”

There are different possible concepts or definitions of “Dysfunctional Leadership.” However, I will use the term to refer to actions take by organizational leaders that result in greater harm or damage to their organizations than the benefits intended or derived.

There are two types or extremes of dysfunctional leadership: 1) a bias for action, and 2) the inability to act. A “bias for action” refers to the tendency to take action in a situation rather than planning a systematic response.  Peters and Waterman described a bias for action as follows: “In its simplest terms, this says ‘get out there and try something.[1]’”

The “inability to act” or Hamlet Syndrome is the polar opposite of a bias for action. It refers to an inability to make a decision or act in the face of a problem or crisis. It is a version of the “Deer in the Headlights” syndrome. We have previously described and explained the psycho-dynamic of leaders who are victims of the Hamlet syndrome elsewhere.[2]

These are two extremes or end points on a continuum. Both extreme leadership behaviors can result in dysfunctional results. In this article, I will focus primarily on a bias for action and leave the inability to act for a later discussion.

The Dysfunctional Results of a Bias for Action

A bias for action can produce dysfunctional results. Such actions taken as a response to the crisis to immediately cut costs amount to a “Ready-Fire-Aim” leadership strategy. For example, in response to the sequestering of people at home, many organizations are faced with the partial or total loss of revenue. In extreme case, this might even result in bankruptcy. Accordingly, some organizations are taking the steps to terminate, layoff or “furlough” employees. In order to preserve cash and help diminish or prevent economic losses.

While this is an understandable approach or reaction, it might well have very dysfunctional consequences. Specifically, the organization is sending a clear but possibly unintended message: “our survival as a business is more important than your economic distress as an individual or other factor.”  This is a cultural message. It clearly demonstrates through behavior what the real core values of the organization are. Although we might say that “people are our most important asset, “our behavior indicates otherwise. This is also a repudiation or abrogation of an unspoken value or “implicit bargain” of reciprocity between business and its employees: “You take care of the firm, and the firm will take care of you!”

Similarly, if companies have agreements or contract in place with vendors, and it they are peremptorily canceled the same message is being sent. These vendors are only “partners” when it is convenient for the organization.

These actions will serve to immediately diminish “goodwill” and trust among employees and vendors. “Goodwill” and trust are intangible assets that once damaged or lost will be very costly and take a very long time to repair. In fact, they might be irreparable.

Actions taken to immediately cut costs amount to a “Ready-Fire-Aim” leadership strategy.

Please note that I am not suggesting that a business should take no action to reduce its costs and cash outflow. Instead the business should look for more creative ways to reduce costs without the consequences of the loss of goodwill and trust. A more creative way to reduce to reduce its costs and cash outflow can only result from a deep dive and systematic assessment using a disciplined planning process that has been described in a previous article.[3]   

It can be argued in rebuttal that during a fire everything must be sacrificed to put out the fire. True, but the analogy is spurious, because a precipitous decline in revenue and profit is not the same as a fire.

Causes of the “Ready-Fire-Aim” Leadership Strategy

There are at least three fundamental causes or contributing factors to motivate leaders to adopt the “Ready-Fire-Aim” Leadership Strategy:  1) key behavioral patterns or personality traits of leaders, 2) support from management theory, and 3) popular culture.

 Key Behavioral Traits. First, there are certain aspects of behavior which are characteristically associated with leaders or natural “Alphas.” Generally, the word “alpha” is used to describe males as in the phrase “Alpha male.” However, there are clear examples of “Alpha females” as well. For example, Boudica, a Celtic Warrior Queen was clearly an Alpha female. In 60 A.D., she led a revolt by the Iceni tribe (later joined by others) against the Romans. Although accounts vary, Boudica led an army of more than 50,000 against the Romans.  Her tribe, who lived in what is now East Anglia, Britain, won initial major battles against the Romans and, in fact, destroyed the IX (ninth) Roman legion, before she ultimately was defeated. 

Although Boudica must have been a charismatic leader, she was not trained extensively as a military strategist. She was, however, like other Celtic women of the time, trained as a warrior and aware of their tactics.  The sheer numbers of her “Army” and their hatred of the Romans fueled by the latter’s outrages against Boudica, her daughters, and the Celtic people as a whole, was initially sufficient to lead to a series of victories.[4] Boudica’s army cleverly ambushed the IX Roman legion and decimated it.

Her limitations as a military strategist became apparent when she battelled against the Roman General Suetonius, who was recalled from what is now Wales to put down the rebellion.  Aware that Boudica’s army had ambushed and destroyed the IX Roman Legion, and also aware that he was vastly outnumbered, Suetonius withdrew from Londinium (present day London), leaving the city to Boudica’s army.  He retreated until he found a location which could neutralize the size advantage of Boudica’s army. Specifically, it was a place where he could not be attacked either from the flanks or the rear, and because of the narrowness of the location Boudica’s army could only attack frontally with a limited number of troops.  Having neutralized Boudica’s advantage in size, the Romans now has the advantage in fighting because they were better armored than the lightly armored Celts, and were trained to fight as a unit rather than as a band of individuals.

Under Boudica’s leadership, her army made a frontal assault on the better positioned but much smaller army led by Suetonius. Estimates vary,  but Suetonius’ legion numbered about 10,000 troops, while Boudica’s army is thought to have ranged upwards of 50,000.  However, it was now Suetonius’ troops who decimated the heroic yet outmaneuvered Celts.

The fate of Boudica and her warrior daughters is not known for certain but it is thought to be likely that they took poison rather than being captured by the Romans. Nevertheless, there is now a statue in London as tribute to Boudica as a heroic (if defeated) Britannic warrior.

What is the lesson from this historic encounter? Boudica seemed to adopt a “Ready-Fire-Aim” approach, while Suetonius adopted a “Ready-Aim-Fire” approach. Specifically, comparing the strategy of Suetonius and Boudica, we see a glaring difference.  Aware that he was vastly outnumbered, Suetonius chose not to fight until he had a strategic advantage in location and withdrew from Londonium--leaving the city unprotected to Boudica’s army.  He retreated until he found a location which could neutralize the size advantage of Boudica’s army. Boudica must have been aware of the strategic advantage that the location which Suetonius selected for battle gave his troops.   Nevertheless, she chose to attack with her overwhelming numbers rather than either position her troops for siege warfare or wait for Suetonius to be forced out of his protected niche. The result was a massacre and overwhelming defeat for the Celts.

This was a classic confrontation of strategy versus action. Clearly, planned strategy was superior to action without a clearly defined strategy.

What might have caused Boudica to attack in the face of an opponent that had positioned itself in a very favorable place? It is likely that Boudica was impelled to act by several by factors affecting any Alpha--notably a bias for action.  

The underlying behavioral pattern of Alphas is what can be termed a “bias for action.”  Alphas think of themselves as leaders, and leaders (by definition) lead! Accordingly, leadership implies action. The failure to act, and act decisively, is by implication a weakness or character flaw. Hence the bias to action is a self-reinforcing notion among Alphas.

Support by Management Theory. The notion that “a bias for action” is a positive managerial strategy is also sometimes cited in management theory. For example, it was cited by Peters and Waterman as one of the “eight characteristics of excellent companies” in their 1980s best seller, In Search of Excellence to explain the purported success of some then leading companies. The book was based   purportedly based upon their “research.”  Unfortunately, the research and conclusions by Peters and Waterman was clearly flawed. Several companies that they cited as “excellent companies,” including Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Digital Equipment (“DEC”) and Dana Corporation), later experienced great difficulties and a few even failed.

Popular Culture. The third factor was a popular cultural notion created and reinforced by Nike. People were bombarded by an advertising blitz of Nike’s slogan “Just Do it!” This, in turn, almost subliminally, helped create and reinforced the notion of what a “good leader” is supposed to do: Just do it! Act! Do something!  

The Combination of all three Factors.

Taken together, all three factors ultimately caused or at least contributed to the notion of a bias for action to be morphed into a simplistic managerial “philosophy” of: “Do it! Try it! Fix it!” In summary, the notion of a bias to action is reinforced by a propensity to act among Alphas, by support from managerial theory, and by popular notion of what constitutes a “good leader.”

The Dysfunctional Results of the Inability to Act.

Although a bias for action can be dysfunctional, at the other extreme the inability to act in crisis can also be damaging to an enterprise. Like the proverbial “deer in the headlights,” some leaders can be virtually paralyzed and unable to make a decision.  They seem (and virtually are) frozen and unable to make up their minds about what to do.

Sometimes the leader of a strategic business unit (“SBU”) is handcuffed by the parent company. In that case a leader that appears to be frozen is actually shackled by the parent company. At other times, the leader is handcuffed by his or her own personality and fearful of making the wrong decision. However, unlike the bias for action, the inability to make a decision is not supported by theory or popular culture. A leader experiencing this syndrome is likely to be criticized for lack of moving quickly or the failure to act--period. Such a leader will undoubtedly be viewed as a “weak leader.” Hence  the desire to avoid be characterized as a weak leader is yet another factor leading to or reinforcing the more common phenomenon of a bias for action.

 Situational Leadership:  Optimum Leadership Style depends on the situation

 Situations matter. They determine the type of leadership response required. 

Under certain conditions or situations, a bias for action is an advantage; in other circumstances to situations it can cause great harm. It depends upon then situation.

Types of Leadership Approaches

Although there are many different ways to categorize leadership approaches, we will identify a typology that is appropriate for our purposes in this situation. These are:

·       Entrepreneurial: Ready-Fire-Aim

·       Bureaucratic: Ready, Ready, Ready…

·       Professional manager: Ready-Aim-Fire

Each is described below.

The “Entrepreneurial” approach can be characterized as “Ready-Fire-Aim.” Action is preferred to planning. However, often action often takes place without much analysis and forethought. This style is the apotheosis of a bias for action. The entrepreneurial style is designed to maximize opportunity. It can, however, be a very chaotic style.  

The “Bureaucratic” approach can be characterized as “Ready- Ready-Ready ….” Action is deferred, and deferred, and might not even ever be taken. Hence the “ready-ready-ready….” A typical comment is: “we are studying that.” This behavior cans also be referred to as “paralysis through analysis.” The bureaucratic style is intended to minimize risk.

The “Professional manager” approach can be characterized as “Ready-Aim-Fire.” Action is taken, but only after systematic analysis, evaluation, and consideration of alternatives. Data or information is a key component of the professional approach. The “Professional manager” approach is designed to strike a balance between taking advantage of opportunity and controlling risk. However, it can drift into either the chaos of the entrepreneurial style or the rigidity of the bureaucratic style.

Factors That “Define A Situation”

There are two main factors that “define a situation” for a choice of leadership approach: 1) the degree of uncertainty or degree of knowledge about the situation, and 2) the degree of risk in the situation.

 These two factors lead to four “situational leadership combinations” as follows:                                      

Type A) Low risk and high certainty of information

Type B) Low risk and low certainty of information

Type C) High risk and high certainty of information

Type D) High risk and low certainty of information

What type of leadership approach is optimal or acceptable in each type of leadership situation? The optimal leadership styles for each are as follows:

Type A) Low risk and high certainty of information: Any leadership style

Type B) Low risk and low certainty of information: Entrepreneurial leadership style

Type C) High risk and high certainty of information: Bureaucratic leadership style

Type D) High risk and low certainty of information: Professional leadership style

Nature of the Current Situation with the Covid-19 Virus

What type of situation is created by the Covid-19 virus? Let’s examine the factors in this situation.

What do we know about the virus? We know that it is:

·       Highly transmittable and

·       Can cause death.

What don’t we know yet about the Virus? Almost everything else, including:

·       Its true gestation-period.

·       Its duration.

·       Why some people get it and others who are presumably exposed apparently do not get it. For example, President Trump has been exposed to people who have the virus but apparently has not been affected by it himself.

·       The complete nature of its transmission.

·       Its true death rate as well as its death rate for people of varying age groups.

·       Who is at most risk for the ultimate consequence of death?

·       Do vaccinations for the flu help prevent or reduce the seriousness of the disease?

·       Are there existing vaccines or antibiotics (which typically do not kill viruses) able to cure or control it?

The Bottom-line Implications for leadership

Given this analysis, what is the bottom line about the leadership situation with this virus? This virus creates a “Type D” situation with a very high degree of uncertainty and a lack of complete knowledge. Accordingly, both the “Ready-fire-aim” and the “Ready-Ready-Ready…” approaches are sub-optimal in this type of situation.

The “Ready-Aim-Fire” approach is optimal under a situation with a very high degree of uncertainty and a lack of complete knowledge. This (“Professional manager”) approach is designed to strike a balance between taking advantage of opportunity and controlling risk.

Action is taken, but only after systematic analysis, evaluation, and consideration of alternatives. Data or information is a key component of the professional approach.

Unfortunately, however, the has been a bias against the Professional manager approach for the last few decades. It has been mischaracterized as a bureaucratic approach.

In brief, the call to action of this discussion is to reconsider the virtues and value of a “Ready-Aim-Fire” approach to leadership.

The wisdom of this approach was seen in the behavior and later expressed philosophy of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, during World War II. Eisenhower, who was both the Supreme Commander in Chief of Allied Forces during WW II and later President of the United States, stated in discussing the Allied invasion of Normandy: “Plans are nothing. Planning is everything.”

This approach is not a panacea. Yet it offers clear advantages over the other approach at the ends of the continuum. The implication of this is that data, analysis, and planning ought to precede decision making and action.  

Finally, as the late great Basketball coach of the UCLA Bruins, John Wooden, whose teams was an unprecedented and amazing 10 NCAA Championships, said: “Failing to prepare is preparing to fail”!

Eric Flamholtz is Professor Emeritus at the Anderson School of Management UCLA and President of Management Systems, which he founded in 1978. He also served on the faculties of the business schools at Columbia University and the Univertsity of Michigan. He can be reached at: EF@Mgtsystems.com. See also: www Mgtsystems.com.

[1] T. Peters and R. Waterman, In Search of Excellence, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1982.

[2] See Eric Flamholtz and Yvonne Randle, The Inner Game of Management, American Management Association, 1987. This book is currently being revised and updated under contract to Vandeplas Publishing, and is expected to be published later in 2020.

[3] See Eric Flamholtz and Ivailo Illiev, “Overcoming the Natural Human Responses to the COVID-19 Crisis,” Linkedin, March 25, 2020.

[4] Boudica was the wife of a Celtic King or Chieftain. After his death, the Romans publicly flogged her and raped her daughters. Understandably vengeful, Boudica led a revolt of her total tribe against the Romans.