Positive versus Negative Leadership

Wednesday, October 29 2008

 I'm going to conclude this long series on leadership (I really am going to conclude, I promise!) with a few
thoughts on positive leadership.

The term is used enough these days to have become somewhat hackneyed, but I still really believe in it.

Positive leadership is leadership that relies on optimism, hope, collaboration, and loyalty to achieve goals.

It is the opposite of a leadership style that relies on division, acrimony, and backstabbing to get the leader
where she wants to go.

I've seen both styles in action during my career and I know, first hand, that while negative leadership can
get the desired results, they are often short-lived and they are always vulnerable to being torn down.

So, too, is the negative leader.

Positive leadership on the other hand, draws people in because at heart (I still believe) people are more
comfortable with positive attributes (like respect, empathy, and ethical action) than the reverse.

Of course, blind optimism -- or sheer naivete -- doesn't produce results either, because it's not grounded
in reality.

But a leadership style that combines a realistic reckoning of events -- an optimistic vision of the future --
can inspire an awful lot of followers.

Eight negative leadership characteristics

1. Unreliable
2. Untrustworthy
3. Uncooperative
4. Irresponsible
5. Lazy
6. Inefficient
7. Disloyal
8. No potential

Face The Challenge - Sample Section, Chapter 16

Chapter Sixteen - Negative Leadership Behaviors
"Negative Behaviors" assesses a great multitude of unproductive
leadership failings or behavior that are commonly demonstrated by failing
Leaders; with the objective that increased awareness of such interactive
failings or negative behaviors is the first step toward eliminating or
improving them. Also discussed is a proven method for correcting and
improving certain negative leadership practices and removing these failings
from a Leader's day-to-day behaviors.
 
 
16.1 Negative Leadership Behaviors.  Negative leadership behaviors
outnumber positive leadership behaviors by such a multiple as to defy
enumeration and sometimes even the imagination.  Negative leadership
behaviors also transmit clear and convincing signals to everyone associated
with an inexpert Leader as to his or her personal inadequacies, character
flaws, or lack of technical competence.  For inept leadership practices are
nearly impossible to conceal; and mindful leadership novices can learn
almost as much about leadership from observing the impact of an
ineffective Leader as they can from a mentor who is exceptionally gifted. 
And though nearly all Subordinates, peers, or superiors can recognize
inadequate Leaders over an extended period (e.g., three to six months),
more astute observers can generally identify them much sooner on and
with far less direct or circumstantial evidence.  Fortunately, the same
negative behavioral characteristics that are readily evident to others may
also be readily identified by Leaders themselves in an effort toward self-
improvement.  However, Leaders cannot responsibly depend upon their
Subordinates, peers, or even their superiors to bring their unproductive
conduct to their attention; and those who must either be spanked or wait
until an interactive crisis emerges to change their errant ways actively
court disaster; as well as continually evoke strong feelings of hostility or
resentment from their Subordinates.  Typically the more reprehensible the
Leader's behavior or the higher his or her supervisory echelon, the less
likely anyone is to mention it; and the more likely he or she is to
irreverently ignore adverse criticism.  Thus to avoid the inevitable pitfalls of
destructive leadership practices, Leaders must learn to monitor their own
behavior and seek to improve themselves through further education and a
greater awareness of the pivotal impact that they can have on their
Subordinates' morale level.  For it is another no-brainer to conclude that
Subordinates are not going to treat the organization's customers or one
another any better than they themselves are treated by their immediate
supervisor or senior management (J. Donnelly, CC p97).  As basically what
these wretchedly bad, misdirected, contemptible, mean-spirited, vile,
abusive, incompetent, low-life, dirty, rotten, leadership scoundrels do—
whether the organization meets its fiscal goals or not—is to rob all those
concerned of the personal exhilaration and achievement satisfaction that
they might otherwise have derived from a more constructive work
environment.

Negative Leadership
Numbers 13:1 - 14:4
Pastor Dave Campbell

It has been said that we may learn leadership in two ways: by making a lot of mistakes or
learning from other people’s. The collapse of leadership displayed in our text is nothing short of
disastrous. Perhaps the biggest disappointment of all is that the ten spies who returned with an
evil report were actually the leaders from among the people. We can easily pick out at least five
major leadership blunders from numbers 13:

1. THEY MISUNDERSTOOD THEIR MANDATE

Numbers 13:17-20 indicates that the spies were not mandated to see IF they can take the land,
but HOW they are to go in. A common mistake that we as leaders can make is over-analyzing
our call. We look at it from every angle we can to see how we can pull it off and we can even
talk our-selves out of doing what God told us to do.

2. THEY GOT FOCUSED ON THE CHALLENGES

When the leaders of Israel saw the land, they saw everything from good to bad. They made the
mistake of allowing their focus to be drawn to their inadequacies. Good leaders will not draw
attention to the weaknesses. Neither would they let the facts obscure the truth. When they
reported strong people and fortified walls and descendants of Anak, they were stating the facts.
The fact is that the inhabitants WERE strong and the cities WERE hard to conquer, but the truth
is, they were able to take the land. Good, godly leaders can state the facts, but they will also state
the truth and offset the negative with faith building words. "Yes, the job will be difficult. Yes, we
feel inadequate for the job, but the truth is God is Awesome and we are able!"

3. THEY FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THEIR POTENTIAL IN GOD

The Lord seeks people of faith to give leadership to His church. Such stuff was obviously
lacking in the hearts of these ten spies. In fact, they actually went so far as to refer to themselves
as grasshoppers and erroneously declared that it would be the way their enemies would see them
also (Num. 13:33). We learn from Rahab that the people of Canaan were actually terrified of the
people of Israel once they heard of God’s intervention on their behalf (Joshua 2:8-11). Their
"hearts melted with fear". Too bad Israel’s leaders didn’t have the same confidence in God’s
power as their enemies did.

4. THEY FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE CONTAGIOUS EFFECT OF A NEGATIVE

REPORT

Numbers 14.1 describes the mass hysteria that occurred after they heard the spy’s assessment.
All the people raised their voices and wept aloud. There was no rejoicing or dancing in the
streets. There was no excitement or anticipation of great and new things in the Lord. There was
only the tragic sound of a defeated people. The people completely bought into the spy’s
evaluation of the situation and believed it entirely. Never under-estimate the power of your
words, especially if you are respected as a leader! I wonder if you have any idea how important
you are to the morale and atmosphere of your church! The vision that you cast to the people will
either make or break the direction of a church! Victory rises and falls on the faith of the leaders.

5. THEY FAILED TO REMEMBER GOD’S MIGHTY DEEDS OF THE PAST

The ten plagues of Egypt and the deliverance through the Red Sea should have been fresh in
their minds yet they seem to have forgotten what

How Negative Leadership Screws Up

Organizations
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004

John Robb is pointing today to a great diagram by Steven

Mason (PDF) that illustrates John Boyd’s teachings on how
positive reinforcement by leaders can create a strong
organization, and negative reinforcement by leaders can
undermine it.

It’s written for military audiences, but to my mind it’s just as

applicable to the business world. Ask yourself how many
companies you’ve worked for where the managers distrusted
and closely managed their subordinates behaved in the ways
described by Boyd’s negative-reinforcement model. Lord
knows I’ve worked for a few :-/

Sound Off, Loudmouth!

Sandy Smith says:
May 22, 2004 at 6:22 am

OK, the cynic in me can’t help but note that Janis Karpinski clearly adhered to the
first model and not the second.
The much harder question is–how do you generate meaningful and deserved
trust in an organization from top to bottom?
Reply

Jason Lefkowitz says:

May 22, 2004 at 7:51 am

The top model is not Karpinski-style management. Notice how it stresses

“objective-driven orders”. The idea is that those at the top are involved and
engaged, but in an appropriate way — by setting a direction, establishing
boundaries, and then letting their subordinates be creative in how they reach the
destination within those boundaries.
Karpinski did none of that. She just plain abdicated her responsibilities. Her
failure to set appropriate boundaries and make it clear what the mission of the
Abu Ghraib prison was is a big reason why her troops could be led to do the
things they did, either by their own dark impulses or by orders from military
intelligence (depending on who you believe).
A unit managed along the first model would have been one where the troops
would have felt comfortable telling MI to take their torture schemes and shove
them, because (a) they knew that they were out of bounds, and (b) they knew
their leadership would back them up if they took the initiative in saying so.

Reply

Sandy Smith says:

May 23, 2004 at 2:45 pm

Objective: Get information on the “dead-enders”.

The top model actually doesn’t discuss boundary-setting. In fact, it suggests that
rules and regulations will be less in a trustful organization.
So in this case, with that objective and no boundaries, what happened at Abu-
Ghraib was almost inevitable. They met the objective in creative ways with no
process-setting (or even review) by management.
I would suggest that a useful addition to the top model would be the boundary
setting that you identify as the key missing ingredient.

Reply

Jason Lefkowitz says:

May 23, 2004 at 3:37 pm

I’m putting the diagrams in context when I talk about boundary-setting. Boyd’s
bete noire was bureaucracy; he spent his life tilting at the Pentagon windmill, and
it eventually destroyed him.
It’s important to note the distinction between formal rules (the kind propagated by
bureaucracies) and operational boundaries (the kind set by local leaders). I made
the distinction between “rules and regulations” and these operational boundaries
because of the diagram’s inclusion of “regulations” — this is a Boyd-ism for
“clueless meddling from the top”.
The top model suggests that regulations will be less, but it does not therefore
imply an anarchic organization. It suggests that regulations will be less so as to
clear the way for local leaders, who are presumably better informed about
changing conditions than the people upstairs are, to set appropriate boundaries
on their own.
This is relevant to Abu Ghraib because there would appear to have been a failure
on several levels to set those appropriate boundaries — from Rumsfeld
(remember his suggestion that the Geneva Conventions were obsolete?) on
down. But nobody ever took the time to clarify exactly what the new rules were.
This put the soldiers on the ground in the unenviable position of having to either
(a) take a moral stand without knowing if anyone would back them up, or (b) just
follow orders.
Notice, too, how the orders the MPs claim they got from military intelligence were
not objective-oriented, as the top model would recommend; they were process-
oriented: “Give him a rough night.” The MIs were meddling in the MPs’ chain of
command. If the MPs’ had been managed along the top model, they would have
had the confidence to push back; being led by the feckless Karpinski, they did
not.
You’re right that the diagrams do not completely encapsulate all of Boyd’s
thinking, but I’m drawing inferences from other stuff he wrote to come to these
conclusions. Sorry if I didn’t make that clearer in the original post. I still think the
diagrams are quite useful, though
How Negative Leadership Screws Up
Organizations
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004

John Robb is pointing today to a great diagram by Steven

Mason (PDF) that illustrates John Boyd’s teachings on how
positive reinforcement by leaders can create a strong
organization, and negative reinforcement by leaders can
undermine it.

It’s written for military audiences, but to my mind it’s just as

applicable to the business world. Ask yourself how many
companies you’ve worked for where the managers distrusted
and closely managed their subordinates behaved in the ways
described by Boyd’s negative-reinforcement model. Lord
knows I’ve worked for a few :-/

Sound Off, Loudmouth!

Sandy Smith says:
May 22, 2004 at 6:22 am

OK, the cynic in me can’t help but note that Janis Karpinski clearly adhered to the
first model and not the second.
The much harder question is–how do you generate meaningful and deserved
trust in an organization from top to bottom?

Reply

Jason Lefkowitz says:

May 22, 2004 at 7:51 am
The top model is not Karpinski-style management. Notice how it stresses
“objective-driven orders”. The idea is that those at the top are involved and
engaged, but in an appropriate way — by setting a direction, establishing
boundaries, and then letting their subordinates be creative in how they reach the
destination within those boundaries.
Karpinski did none of that. She just plain abdicated her responsibilities. Her
failure to set appropriate boundaries and make it clear what the mission of the
Abu Ghraib prison was is a big reason why her troops could be led to do the
things they did, either by their own dark impulses or by orders from military
intelligence (depending on who you believe).
A unit managed along the first model would have been one where the troops
would have felt comfortable telling MI to take their torture schemes and shove
them, because (a) they knew that they were out of bounds, and (b) they knew
their leadership would back them up if they took the initiative in saying so.

Reply

Sandy Smith says:

May 23, 2004 at 2:45 pm

Objective: Get information on the “dead-enders”.

The top model actually doesn’t discuss boundary-setting. In fact, it suggests that
rules and regulations will be less in a trustful organization.
So in this case, with that objective and no boundaries, what happened at Abu-
Ghraib was almost inevitable. They met the objective in creative ways with no
process-setting (or even review) by management.
I would suggest that a useful addition to the top model would be the boundary
setting that you identify as the key missing ingredient.

Reply

Jason Lefkowitz says:

May 23, 2004 at 3:37 pm

I’m putting the diagrams in context when I talk about boundary-setting. Boyd’s
bete noire was bureaucracy; he spent his life tilting at the Pentagon windmill, and
it eventually destroyed him.
It’s important to note the distinction between formal rules (the kind propagated by
bureaucracies) and operational boundaries (the kind set by local leaders). I made
the distinction between “rules and regulations” and these operational boundaries
because of the diagram’s inclusion of “regulations” — this is a Boyd-ism for
“clueless meddling from the top”.
The top model suggests that regulations will be less, but it does not therefore
imply an anarchic organization. It suggests that regulations will be less so as to
clear the way for local leaders, who are presumably better informed about
changing conditions than the people upstairs are, to set appropriate boundaries
on their own.
This is relevant to Abu Ghraib because there would appear to have been a failure
on several levels to set those appropriate boundaries — from Rumsfeld
(remember his suggestion that the Geneva Conventions were obsolete?) on
down. But nobody ever took the time to clarify exactly what the new rules were.
This put the soldiers on the ground in the unenviable position of having to either
(a) take a moral stand without knowing if anyone would back them up, or (b) just
follow orders.
Notice, too, how the orders the MPs claim they got from military intelligence were
not objective-oriented, as the top model would recommend; they were process-
oriented: “Give him a rough night.” The MIs were meddling in the MPs’ chain of
command. If the MPs’ had been managed along the top model, they would have
had the confidence to push back; being led by the feckless Karpinski, they did
not.
You’re right that the diagrams do not completely encapsulate all of Boyd’s
thinking, but I’m drawing inferences from other stuff he wrote to come to these
conclusions. Sorry if I didn’t make that clearer in the original post. I still think the
diagrams are quite useful, though

What’s a Bad Leader to Do?

If you’re an ineffective leader who recognizes they bring too much ego to the table, congratulations.

Admitting you have a problem is always the first step. The next steps are a little harder.
 In order to become an enlightened, effective leader (yes, this is a little redundant) you first have to realize

that you don’t have all the answers. Even if you’re the owner of your company, you must understand very

early on two important facts about industrial knowledge:

 Those closest to the customers have the answers; and

 Two heads are better than one.

As a leader, you are generally not the closest person to your customers (and you only come equipped

with on head). Assuming you know it all is asinine and can be destructive to any organization. Seeking

advice and answers from others not only makes you appear more genuine, it also means you’ll make

better decisions.

Your next step toward shedding that melon-sized ego is to instill some humility in your routine. Humility,

for those egomaniacal loons reading this, simply means that you’re humble; that you lack the pride and

arrogance that makes you believe that everything is all about you. It also means that you see your major

contribution as building and maintaining a motivating work environment that engages your team. (Leaders

without humility believe their major contribution to the effort is the greatness that is “me.”)

Once you understand that you don’t know it all and that it’s not all about you, you can begin learning.

Enlightened leaders have a voracious appetite for learning. They learn from books, from seminars and

they especially learn from others. Truly enlightened leaders believe that everyone, even the receptionist

and the janitor, has something to teach them. And they understand that the best way to learn is to listen.

A Spade is a Spade

Without some outside help, of course, it will be nearly impossible for the ego-driven leader to change his

ways. We recommend assigning a peer or even a subordinate to call you to the carpet when you fail to

provide humble, servant leadership.

Ask someone you can trust (and won’t resent) to call you an egomaniac when you step out of line.

Encourage them to stand on your desk and shout at you whenever you fail to remain humble. You have to

be willing to permit these constant course corrections or you have no chance to recognize and repair the

destructive effects of ego on your leadership style.

The bottom line is that can’t let your ego get in the way of the goal. Your ability to overcome self-serving

tendencies will determine your team’s effectiveness and anything you can do to give up your desire to be

the center of attention can only help.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Book Reviews 1

2007, Vol. 3, No. 6-7
http://www.CognitiveTherapyAssociation.org/cbtbr.aspx
Copyright 2007 by the International Association for Cognitive Psychotherapy
Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why it Matters.
Kellerman, B. (2004). Harvard Business School Press (www.hbsp.harvard.edu/), 282 pp.,
$26.95 (Hardcover).
This book challenges conventional thinking that suggests the activity of leading
requires goodness, competence, and courage. This book compels us to consider, analyze
and learn from bad leadership. It requires us to look at the human behavior of leadership
in all its forms, including those that are not so flattering, and argues that bad leadership is
all around us and that the only way to better address it is to study it, analyze it, learn from
it, and finally, take action against it. It offers an outstanding compilation of noteworthy
business and political leaders who have caused harm to those around them, both near and
far. It is written in a structured and cohesive manner to allow the reader to understand
that leadership is “just one strand of a web that constitutes the leadership process.”
The book is divided into three parts and has a total of 12 chapters. In Part One,
“The Bad Side,” there are three chapters, Claiming The Bad Side, Reasons For Being
Bad; and Making Meaning Of Being Bad. This part addresses human behavior and
leadership. In “Claiming The Bad Side,” the author speaks to the need to define and look
at bad leadership. She argues that for far too long, the term “leadership” has been
synonymous with “good” leadership. She proposes that all leaders must be studied,
whether they used their power and authority for good or whether they were “power
wielders” who served their own purpose and greed. In the second chapter, “Reasons For
Being Bad,” Kellerman offers a philosophical, historical and psychological perspective of
leadership. She endeavors to explain the reasons that leaders behave badly, the reasons
that we follow leaders who behave badly, and the reasons that followers behave badly. In
“Making Meaning of Being Bad” (Chapter 3), she offers a model to better understand bad
leadership. This model puts bad leadership on two axes, Ineffective Leadership and
Unethical Leadership, and suggests that these are more than just theoretical constructs.
These are empirical constructs which are later illustrated. She identifies seven types of
bad leadership: Incompetent, Rigid, Intemperate, Callous, Corrupt, Insular, and Evil.
In Part Two, “Leading Badly,” Kellerman provides seven chapters, one for each
bad leadership type: Incompetent, Rigid, Intemperate, Callous, Corrupt, Insular, and Evil.
These chapters are extremely well written, particularly in regard to their structure and
content. Each chapter follows an outline of subsections which allows the reader to easily
relate one chapter to previous and subsequent chapters and better understand bad
leadership. Each chapter begins with an introduction, offers brief examples, and then
identifies one bad leader as its main focus for the particular type of bad leadership. The
subsections include: The Prologue, Context, The Leader, The Followers, The Web, and
The Benefit of Hindsight. Chapters four through ten read as a “Who’s Who” of bad
leadership, each discussing its respective bad leadership style.
Chapter Four: “Incompetent”, offers a review of the leadership styles of Juan
Antonio Samaranch, president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), who was
disgraced because of the wide spread corruption among members of the IOC;
Abdurrahman Wahid, former president of Indonesia, the world’s fourth most populous
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Book Reviews 2
2007, Vol. 3, No. 6-7
http://www.CognitiveTherapyAssociation.org/cbtbr.aspx
Copyright 2007 by the International Association for Cognitive Psychotherapy
country, who after his capricious management style, inconsistent policies and erratic
behavior, he was ousted after only 22 months in office; Jill Barad, briefly CEO of Mattel
Inc. the largest and most successful toy company in the United States, who was ousted
because of a failed merger.
Chapter Five: “Rigid”, identifies the leadership styles of Mary Meeker, opinion
leader at the Wall Street firm Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co, who ignored
information that the tech bubble of the 1990’s was bursting and continued to recommend
tech stock long after they had become risky; Robert Hass, former CEO of Levi Strauss &
Co., who failed to see the implications of the global economy on his company; Sumner
Redstone, CEO of Viacom, the media corporation, who failed to effectively address the
issue of succession planning; Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, who failed to respond
in a timely manner to the Kursk submarine disaster. Chapter Six: “Intemperate”,
discusses the leadership styles of Marion Barry Jr., former mayor of Washington, D.C.,
who was tainted by drug use scandals; Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson, American politicians
who were tainted by sexscandals; James Bakker, televangelist who was tainted by
financial corruption; Henry Lyons, televangelist who was tainted by sex scandals;
William Bennett, author of “The Book Of Virtues” and self appointed warrior of the
culture wars, who was tainted by his own gambling behavior.
Chapter Seven: “Callous”, considers the leadership styles of Al Dunlap, former
CEO of Sunbeam Corporation also know as “Chainsaw Al”, who due to the short sighted
way he managed corporate restructuring created a fiasco for Sunbeam share holders and
employees; Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, who, prior to 9/11 which
changed how he was perceived, was seen as callous and unresponsive to members of the
minority community in New York City, particularly African Americans; Leona
Helmsley, brash and capricious real estate mogul, who served time in prison for tax
evasion; Howell Raines, former executive editor of the New York Times, whose
autocratic and callous management style during several scandals at the newspaper led to
his termination.
Chapter Eight: “Corrupt”, assesses the leadership styles of William Aramony,
former head of the United Way, who was forced to resign because of his accounting and
management practices; Vincent (Buddy) Cianci Jr., former mayor of Providence, Rhode
Island, who was convicted of racketeering conspiracy; Mario Villanueva, former
governor of the Mexican state of Quintana Roo, who was charged with shipping cocaine
to the United States, drug trafficking, and money laundering; Andrew Fastow, former
CFO of Enron, who pleaded guilty to two felonies relating to the accounting practices
which contributed in the collapse of Enron.
Chapter Nine: “Insular”, describes the leadership styles of Bill Clinton, former
president of the United States, who failed to respond to the crisis in Rwanda; Lee
Raymond, president of the Exxon Mobil Corporation, who failed to engage or
demonstrate concern for anyone outside Exxon Mobil; James W. Johnston, former CEO
of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco, who adamantly insisted that cigarette smoking and nicotine
were not addictive long after the data had proved otherwise.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Book Reviews 3
2007, Vol. 3, No. 6-7
http://www.CognitiveTherapyAssociation.org/cbtbr.aspx
Copyright 2007 by the International Association for Cognitive Psychotherapy
Chapter Ten: “Evil”, details the leadership styles of Radovan Karadzic, first
president of the Bosnian Serb Administration, who permitted the widespread genocide of
Bosnian Muslims; Saddam Hussein, former president of Iraq, who was responsible for
murder, torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing and use of chemical weapons against his own
people; Jim Jones and David Koresh, cult leaders and dictators, who caused or
contributed to the deaths of their loyal followers.
In Part Three, “From Bad To Better,” there are two chapters, Costs And Benefits
and Comments And Corrections, that clarifY the short and long term consequences of
bad leadership and offers suggestions regarding what can be done regarding bad
leadership. In “Costs And Benefits” (Chapter 11), Kellerman looks at the ongoing costs
of bad leadership and the benefits of its study. It argues, quite convincingly, that bad
leadership has a lingering and multigenerational effect. The benefits of study rely on our
ability to identify and understand patterns of human behavior and bad leadership, so that
we will better be able to confront it early in its genesis. In Chapter 12, “Comments and
Corrections,” she offers hope that bad leaders can be made better or at least their harmful
effects can be slowed. Additionally, it offers prescriptive suggestions to leaders and
followers to remediate the development of bad leadership.
This book should be considered a must read for anyone who has ever been
interested in learning about leadership. It is well written, clear, instructive, and offers
information in a well thought out format, unlike many books in this genre. It offers a
structure which can be applied to many leaders currently on the world stage, and
probably some of the leadership styles many of us experience every day. Finally, it offers
concrete suggestions for leaders and followers to consider in order avoid the perils of bad
leadership.