Name: Wolf
Age: 50
Role: senior leader

Doing others’ work

Wolf marks up some documents from a specialist team in the organisation. He does not need to do this, which creates unnecessary delays and work, but he enjoys it.

Costs

• Over-involving yourself in other people’s work may not look like underperformance, but it is when you waste time meddling. One of the hardest things for many senior leaders to do is to avoid the temptation to involve themselves unnecessarily, for example, in topics where they have technical expertise.

• The costs are significant—wasted time that could have been spent listening to neglected parts of the business and showing appreciation rather than leaving specialists feeling second-guessed.

• The solution? Ask your experts what they need from you and what they do not. Ask them whether they feel supported by you, and reflect carefully if you hear anything other than a wholehearted, “Yes.”

Uncontrolled decisions

Wolf approved the budget last week but now emails the C-suite and says he wants a further 5% reduction by the end of the week. He puts a line through the proposed spending on harassment prevention training. Still, he keeps the £5,000 for the Donkey Dressage and Bow Tie Appreciation societies and the £50,000 for the expensive consultant he’s hired to ensure his session at an upcoming leadership conference goes well.  Finally, regardless of their performance, he gives special bonuses to the people he relies on the most to keep them onside and avoid awkward conversations. He rails against spending in all parts of the organisation except his own pet interests.

Costs

• Money talks, and Wolf’s decisions speak volumes. Last-minute impulsivity creates havoc, rushed work and poor decision-making. 

• Wolf operates above the clouds of controls and accountability that are the norm for lower beings. He operates in a world of endless blue skies where nothing and no one can question his actions. The organisation would have no integrity issue if Wolf’s actions matched its values. They do not.

Bad appointments

Wolf emails Ace to say he is appointing her to management against HR advice. He tells himself the move will upskill her and is good for inclusion. Wolf also emails the organisation to announce the recruitment of Indiana, a high-profile hire. Indiana was terminated by his previous employer and has a ‘good brain/bad character’ reputation. Wolf would have discovered this if the organisation applied the same rigour to leadership recruitment as all other roles. The truth is that Wolf would have hired Indiana even if he knew he was a bully, justifying the decision based on the lie that he would ‘manage it’. Sadly, the hiring decision turns out to be a disaster.

Costs

• Wolf has created headaches for the organisation. The best guide to how Ace will behave in the future is how she has behaved in the past. The promotion will not improve her management skills by magic. Ace’s team morale will take a tumble, driving disengagement and complaints. It sends the message that merit does not matter.

• As for Indiana, it is difficult to get senior-level hiring right, and many do not live up to the promise. There are several reasons for that, but a big one is that organisations can be desperate to offload their senior problems, and too often, proper due diligence either does not happen or is ignored. This creates a merry-go-round of havoc-creators.

Unjustified exceptions

After some leadership lobbying, Wolf agrees to exempt one business area and one region from an initiative to improve the organisation’s culture.

Costs

• When I look back to the root causes of the biggest shambles I have dealt with, one thing they have in common is that management made an exception to a policy, control, or change requirement.

• Organisations that permit an individual, team, or region to operate in a silo play a high risk game – a ‘them and us’ mindset ensues, and the foundations of the culture crack. In that gap lurks things like fraud, harassment, bullying, discrimination, and bad practices.

Echo chambers

Wolf meets his direct reports. He says he has read negative comments in the media and that complaints are increasing. Wolf is not concerned about the legal or financial risk, as he can count on Teflon Tony in Legal to oversee any investigations and no-one will question the spend anyway. Wolf knows he can rely on Tony to be ‘commercial’ and investigate just enough to have a presentable defence but not enough to create a problem.

Nevertheless, these trends go against the image Wolf wants to present, so he says he is curious to hear his team’s thoughts on what is happening. There is silence. Giving Wolf bad news is a risky business. He is a terrible listener and does not react well. A brave voice pipes up that there has been a negative reaction to some recent decisions. Others nod in agreement and mention a few names – Ace, Bill, Hero, and Indiana. Direct report Toady knows an opportunity when he sees one and says he strongly disagrees with this – it is not about the organisation, it is about, “snowflakes and troublemakers”. Wolf thanks Toady for the, “common sense”. He says the others are wrong – his go-to consultancy has told him that all is well. Toady makes Wolf feel good; in return, Wolf will rely on him more and more.

Costs

• Wolf silences people, except sycophants who capitalise when others tell the truth. 

• The cost to Wolf is that he detaches from reality.

• An investigator like Tony is a barrier to trust and progress. Too many ‘independent’ investigators are soaked in keeping the relationship and profitability in a sweet spot, and are numb to the extent to which they bring their organisation and profession into disrepute.

No accountability

That evening, Wolf will deliver a speech on the organisation’s shiny values of Fellowship, Accountability, Kindness, and Excellence - recently having taken Diversity off the list. Joy, his EA, has stage-managed every aspect of the event so that Wolf comes across perfectly. Before he heads off to the auditorium, Joy tells him that she has accepted a role elsewhere. Wolf loses his temper and shouts that he forbids it. He storms off to deliver his speech. Another leader in senior management, Luna, overhears and says that she will speak to Wolf. She never does.

Meanwhile, Wolf – an industry icon – wows his audience of future talent with an inspirational speech about the organisation’s collaborative culture and the utmost importance of culture to him personally. He never apologises to Joy. Never apologising is a value he holds dear.

Costs

• No one holds Wolf accountable directly, but that does not mean there are no consequences. Joy’s resignation has already materialised. The story will affect how others see Wolf, Luna, and the organisation. The odds of complaints being made have shortened, and in recent years managing complaints has become more demanding.

• The legal and regulatory landscape makes Wolf’s leadership style increasingly risky. In some countries, such as the UK, the legal requirements on employers are increasing. Regulators focus on behaviour more than before, and action can take years to resolve. And Wolf’s speech on the organisation’s values? Raising false expectations in the next generation sows the seeds of disappointment, betrayal, and resentment. In a social media world, good luck to Wolf and his organisation if they think they won’t soon be sporting an embarrassing online tattoo.

Solutions

The solutions to underperforming senior leaders are:

• Individual and collective upskilling, support, and accountability on the issues set out in this article.

• Taking steps to ensure the senior team functions effectively and understands its role in relation to culture and ensuring mutual effectiveness. 

• Create strong speaking-up channels and information flows to the organisation’s governance board without undue influence.