Michelle
McQuaid, a leader in positive psychology
So why are people
generally so dissatisfied with their bosses? Can business leaders not live up
to their name? If leaders cannot inspire people to follow them, or to even like
them, than what is their point?
In the west individualism
is emphasized and collectivism is looked down upon. Correspondingly, a common
complaint of employees is that they are not given enough autonomy. Indeed, many
dream of becoming their own boss, setting their own schedule, and relying on
themselves to make things happen. A study by Accenture reported that 22% of
executives desire to start their own company (Hall 2013). Further, it seems
that more and more people are desiring autonomy. Mellissa Llarena reported that 54% of the
young working generation wish to work for themselves (Hall, 2013). In these
instances, management is often seen as more of an obstacle than a help.
Is not the idea of coming
to work and not having a superior interfere with your self-directed work
idyllic? Is it true that the most satisfying jobs go by the philosophy that in
supervision “less is more”? There is definitely a leadership theory that
incorporates these ideals; it is the laissez-faire leadership theory. In this
article, here will be examined the attributes, effectiveness, and implication
of a laissez-faire leadership style in context of recent academic literature
and studies.
Laissez-faire Leadership in Leadership Development
In 1938, psychologists
Lewin, Lippitt, and White set out to classify and study different types of
leadership. Through this study they identified three different leadership
styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire.
Autocratic leadership is
typified by authoritarian direction and expectations of results. Democratic
leadership is almost the polar opposite, collaboration is encouraged and an
integrative leadership where leaders and employees participate together is
cultivated. In contrast to these methods, laissez-fair leadership is something
altogether different.
The phrase “laissez
faire” is French and means “let it be”. Typically this phase with laissez faire
style economics where governments do not interfere, impose restrictions, or
subsidize private businesses. Similarly, in leadership, laissez faire
leadership involves little to no supervision or traditional leadership role
fulfillment.
Laissez-faire leadership
exist in a business for any number of reasons and in a spectrum of conditions
and structures. It could be a well-crafted business plan for success or simply
a leader typified by inaction and laziness. While some see laissez-faire
leadership as an oxymoron and use synonymously with indolence and lethargy
(Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007), some claim that
under the right conditions, laissez-faire leadership can be the most effective
method to lead with (Goodnight, 2004; Widener University, n.d.).
While many employees
complain about their jobs and look for greater autonomy, would the
laissez-faire kind of leadership really benefit the team or the business? So
much effort and money has been expending in to the research and training for
leadership development, could it be that the best plan is “no plan”?
Assumptions of Deliberate Laissez-faire Leadership
To
purposefully adopt a laissez-faire leadership style it takes certain
precautions, assumptions, and basic beliefs about behavior and leadership. Without
these assumptions and precaution in place, the laissez-fair leadership is not a
leadership at all, but merely a neglect, a defaulted inaction.
Firstly, by adopting a
“hands-off” approach to leadership you need to have trained qualified team that
will require littler direction or feedback. This works well for veteran
positions where employees have demonstrated formidable skill sets and work
ethics, but less well with workers that are more inexperienced. If the team
cannot perform their expected tasks on their own then applying a laissez-faire
will only cause frustration and ineffective work.
Secondly, by implementing
laissez-faire, you are assuming that by leaving employees on their own mean,
you give them the opportunity to use cultivate their creativity and innovation
to provide benefits that would not have otherwise surfaced. Some companies such
as Atlassian have capitalized on this assumption. Every quarter, Atlassias
gives all their employees the chance to work on anything that relates to our
products. They can choose anything they want to do; however, they only have 24
hours to do it. They have found great results from this meager one day of
autonomy (Atlassian, n.d.).
Thirdly, you assume, by
using this method, that your team’s moral will improve because of it. Not
everyone enjoys, or can minting, autonomy and self-direction. You need to know
that the people you have, and the people that you will hire, are compatible
with a laissez-faire environment. More and more people are working at home
either full time, or part time.
Fourthly, by giving the
employees such power and freedom of choice, you are assuming a lot about the
motivation of people, and the motivation of your team. You are assuming that
your team is motivated by personal satisfaction, pride in oneself, the company,
and their work, and pride in task mastery. If these assumptions are met, your
team can see more work output, better quality, less worker attrition rates, and
greater job satisfaction. You are putting your trust in the employees that they
know how to do their work best and they will take personal pride in doing it in
an effective manner. However, if these assumptions are not met, you will likely
be met with low performance, low worker satisfaction, and frustration.
Current Research on Laissez-Faire Leadership
As many see laissez-faire
leadership as a “non-leadership”, very few studies have been aimed directly to
understand it. The research that has included laissez-faire leadership in
comparison to Transformation or Transactional leadership styles find it lacking
in term of effectiveness, fulfillment, and motivation. The few studies which
directly focus on laissez-faire leadership generally take a very traditional
view of laissez-faire in which it is a leadership of default rather than a
leadership of purpose. As such, almost every mention on laissez-faire in
literature is negative.
Even in the original 1938
study comparing the three different leadership styles, the effectiveness laissez-faire
leadership styles was the least effective (Lewin, Lippitt, and White, 1938). The
children’s leader were instructed offer little or no guidance to group members
and leave decision-making up to group members. The children the group more
demands on the leader than either of the other groups, showed little
cooperation and were unable to work independently.
Serious
research into Lewin’s categories of leadership was stimulated by a
groundbreaking measure created by psychologist Bernard Bass (1985). Bass
created a measure called the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), which
has been said to be the basis of recent research in this area (Hinkin &
Schriesheim, 2008).
Using
the MLQ researchers Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, and Hetland found
that leaders demonstrating a laissez-faire as positively correlated with role
ambiguity, role conflict, and workplace bullying and psychological stress
(2007). This study does not offer any causal conclusions, and while much of
these variables are correlated and mediated by each other, this study does
demonstrate that a clear link between laissez-faire leadership and increased
bullying in the workplace.
In
another study on bullying, it was found that compared to respondents
experiencing low of laissez-faire leadership, high levels of laissez-faire
leadership had three times the risk of bullying behaviors (Nielsen, 2013). Further,
in this study, the only statistically significant factor to predict bullying
was is they were being managed by a laissez-faire leadership style. However, as
this study relied on what the participants report their bosses were like it is
possible that those who were bullied were more likely to see their boss as more
aloof and distant than those who had not experienced bullying.
Other
studies have shown that laissez-faire leadership negatively predict innovative
work behavior (Khan, & Riaz, 2012), are more prone to have higher incident
rates in medical facilities (Krouse, 2011), and a negative correlation in
self-efficacy in social workers. Indeed, almost all the research done on laissez-faire
leadership shows that it pales in comparison to the other two counterparts.
While
most of the literature regarding laissez-faire is negative there are some
studies which point so some very positive aspects. In a 2008 study of the
effectiveness of different leadership styles of clergy, it was found that laissez-faire
leadership was the most effective. Barbuto found that laissez-faire leadership
was positively correlated to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (2005).
Similarly, Chaudhry and Javed found that laissez-faire was positively
correlated with motivation, though not as strongly as transactional or
transformational leadership style (2012).
Discussion
of Research, the Spectrum of Laissez-Faire Leadership, and Suggestions for Future Research
Finding
any generalizable study in which shows laissez-faire leadership in a positive
light is very rare. However, the vast majority of laissez-faire leaders are
leaders of default and inaction, not leaders with a purposeful leadership
philosophy. Such leaders of default demonstrate aspects of laziness,
inhabitation, and apathy. They practice an extreme laissez-faire leadership
style which has not guidelines, just inaction. Their employees are working for
them with false expectations of leadership, deficiency of training, and unmet
needs. They are left to guess if their employer will complete his job or his
involvement.
As this is the case, it
is not surprising that the results are as such. It would be of interest if
further research were to focus in on purposeful leaders which adopted a form of
laissez-faire leadership. Such leaders would be forthright with their
leadership style letting their team know what to expect. They would hire a
capable team compatible with laissez-faire leadership. They would be adept in
their job possessing all the skills necessary to perform their tasks with
self-judgment and minimal supervision. They would have demonstrated reliability
and self-motivation. This would minimize the aforementioned potential
liabilities of a laissez-faire leadership style.
This style of leaderships
is more akin to subcontracting than to traditional leadership -- the worker is
given a clear objective and is left to autonomously complete his object using
his own skills and work management.
Further research into this type of laissez-faire leadership would be
very beneficial to better understand some potential gains of taking a more
deliberate and structured “hands-off” approach.
Laissez-Fair, a Critical Aspect of Future Leadership Development
As technology increases,
working at home have been on the rise. Several companies now allow employees to
work at home periodically once they have established their work ethic. One study has reported that the number of
Americans working from home increased 40% from 1999 to 2010 (Fox, 2012).
According to an international survey of almost 10,000 participants, 26% of
employees were working at home at least one day a week in 2012. This is up from 18% just two years prior in
2010. Further, in 2012, 12% of employees
spend some time doing work in public venues such as coffee shops, or
restaurants, this being twice the 6% that reported doing so in 2010 (Forrester,
2012).
As people are spending
more time working out of their home it gives them more flexibility and
autonomy. This, by necessity, creates
more of a laissez-faire, or “hands off” type of environment. A manager will not have constant
communication with a worker which is at home.
Their relationship will be much different, and more emotionally
distant. The manager is likely to give
less thought to the employee at home than to the employee in the office. It
would be wise to go into such situations with a clear plan so it does such
relationships do degenerate into a laissez-faire leadership style of
default-inaction.
To do so, we must
research the conditions in which a more laissez-faire leadership style can
survive while maintaining order and efficiency. Not only will future research
tell us how laissez-faire can work, but it will also give us further
information as to why most laissez-faire relationships do not work. Thus, the laissez-faire leadership style is a
critical area of leadership development which should be given more prominence
and thought in future research.
Work Cited
Atlassian. (n.d.). ShipIt Days at Atlassian. Retrieved from https://www.atlassian.com/company/about/shipit
Barbuto, J. E. (2005). Motivation
and Transactional, Charismatic, and Transformational Leadership: A Test of
Antecedents. Journal of leadership and organizational studies, 11(4), 26-40.
Chaudhry, A. Q. & Javed H. (2012). Impact of Transactional and Laissez Faire Leadership Style on
Motivation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7), 258-264.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership
and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Forrester. (2008). Forrsights Workforce Employee Survey, Q4 2012. Forrsights for Business
Technology. Retrieved from
http://www.huduser.org/Datasets/IL/IL08/in_fy2008.pdf
Fox, J. E. (2012). Work
from home soars 41% in 10 years. CNNMoney. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/04/news/economy/work-from-home/
Goodnight, R. (2004). Laissez-Faire
Leadership. Encyclopedia of Leadership (820-823). Sage.
Hall, A. (2013). 'I'm
Outta Here!' Why 2 Million Americans Quit Every Month (And 5 Steps to Turn the
Epidemic Around). Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/alanhall/2013/03/11/im-outta-here-why-2-million-americans-quit-every-month-and-5-steps-to-turn-the-epidemic-around/
Harvard Business Review (2012). Managing Talent in Troubled Times. Harvard Business Review,
Retrieved from http://appli7.hec.fr/hrm/diversity/HBR_HEC_Executive_Survey1.htm
Hinkin, T. R.,
& Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). An
examination of 'nonleadership': From laissez-faire leadership to leader reward
omission and punishment omission. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1234-1248. doi:10.1037/a0012875
Khan, M., Aslam, N., & Riaz, M. (2012). Leadership styles as predictors of
innovative work behavior. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 9(2), 17-22.
Kissel, T. (2012). 65%
of Americans Choose a Better Boss over a Raise – Here’s Why. Forbes,
Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/tykiisel/2012/10/16/65-of-americans-choose-a-better-boss-over-a-raise-heres-why/
Krouse, J. E. (2011). Leadership
characteristics identified within successful safety cultures: A study of
transformational, transactional and passive/avoidant leader behaviors.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 71,
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10,
271– 301.
Nielsen, M. (2013). Bullying
in work groups: The impact of leadership. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 54(2), 127-136.
doi:10.1111/sjop.12011
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M., &
Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness
of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 12(1), 80-92.
doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80
Widener University
(n.d.). Laissez Faire Leadership.
Retrieved from http://www.widener.edu/about/widener_values/leadership/oskin_leadership/az/laissez-faire.aspx
