The Liability of Lethargic Leadership, Part I

By Richard Russey

When one approaches the responsibility of leadership with anything less that an all-out effort, with all pistons firing and high energy bubbling up from the cellular level, then one may be entering into a zone of liability that I call “lethargic leadership.”

Dating back to the 16th Century, John Maxwell, a Scottish noble and supporter of Mary Stuart, queen of Scots, said, “Leaders must be close enough to relate to others, but far enough ahead to motivate them.”

When a leader acts on the wisdom of John Maxwell’s words of nearly 500 years ago, that leader is acting with responsibility, vision and energy that are the antithesis of lethargic.

There are a number of indicators that may act as warning signals or red flags and fortunately there are solutions that may be applied to get back on track and bring a degree of appropriate zest back into the role of a leader.

Herewith are some characteristics of lethargic leadership that I will explore in Part I, along with remedies that may be applied to each.

Team meetings that are infrequent or too-frequent

The Problem: Both infrequent and too-frequent team meetings can be classified as lethargic leadership because what such scheduling reveals is that in either case time is being wasted. Infrequency of team meetings will often lead an atmosphere where team members are disconnected from one another. A great deal of catching up with one another, and updating of various tasks must be accomplished before the team as a whole can deal with issues at hand. But, interestingly and contrary to appearances, too-frequent team meetings can reveal lethargic leadership. Pulling team members away from their day to day tasks and work towards the successful accomplishment of objectives is an indicator that the leader is leaning too heavily on these frequent updates to stay in the loop. In this case, the leader should be connecting with individual staff members, or smaller work groups to get updates and to ascertain the progress of projects. This can be done without gathering the entire team.

The Solution: Create a schedule of team meetings that occur on a regular schedule that is appropriate to the work projects with which the team is engaged. Team meetings conducted once per week is generally a workable schedule. If at all possible the team meetings should be established as an expectation early on, and should be scheduled for the same day and time each week. Changing the day and time of team meetings creates confusion, staff that will be absent from the meetings because of other commitments related to their work. Of course there are always going to be exceptions, but they should be just that – exceptions.

Team meetings that are too short or too long in duration

The Problem: Most problematic are team meetings that drag on for several hours without sufficient focus to deal with the issues that are of concern to the team and that the team can help to resolve. But, team meetings that are too short may also be frustrating because they don’t allow time for in-depth discussions and problem resolution. It is probably clear that team meetings that are too long or too short have some relatedness to frequency issue discussed above.

The Solution: A general rule of thumb is that a team meeting should run about one hour. We’ve all experienced team meetings that are much shorter, as well as meetings that are decidedly longer. But, one hour should be sufficient time to obtain brief updates from the staff, to raise several pressing issues and engage in problem solving discussions, and review the agreements made during the meeting for action going forward. In order to assure a 60-minute staff meeting is functional and productive it is absolutely imperative to work from an agenda. A useful agenda includes three things: a list of topics to be discussed; the discussion leader for each topic; and a time-frame for each topic. Here is a very simple example:
________________________________________________________

ABC Company
Project Team Meeting
Date, Time

A G E N D A

Overview of Project Tasks*
R. Smith 10 mins.

Current Opportunities
E. Jones 20 mins.

Current Challenges
B. Right 15 mins.

Upcoming Events*
T. Jazzy 10 mins.

Review of Decisions/Closure
A. Starr 05 mins.

* See attachments

_________________________________________________________

It is critical to include attachments that may be helpful for the team to read in advance in preparation for the meeting.


Lack of balanced task delegation

The Problem: When a leader delegates too much or too little it is once again a red flag that lethargic leadership is taking place. Simply put, insufficient thought is being put into a well-balanced distribution of tasks among team members and those tasks that should be retained by the leader. When a leader feels it is necessary to handle nearly all tasks and holds onto those tasks with significant responsibility it sends a message to the team that they are not trusted by their leader. On the other hand, when a leader delegates practically everything, and doesn’t take responsibility for some significant tasks, the team members can feel overburdened and begin to question the leader’s role. This is another reason for transparent leadership – the team should always have a sense of what a leader is spending time doing on a day to day basis. It may be professional development activities being planned for staff or other HR issues; it may be participating in community, state, or national meetings with peers; it may be networking to increase business or collaborative opportunities; or it may be fundraising. Whatever the role of the leader – it should not be conducted in secret. That is not to say that the team needs to know all the details about everything as that could prove counterproductive for other reasons. But, the team should have enough of a sense of what their leader is engaged in to have a sense of trust.

The Solution: The leader of an organization should spend considerable time managing the tasks of the team, or working with the vice presidents and/or directors or managers in delegating task work equitably across the organization. This should include an obvious and visible responsibility for some significant tasks taken on by the leader or leadership team. This is often best worked out during the weekly team meetings. Often, you’ll find that your staff members are very willing to take on responsibilities – eager to demonstrate their knowledge, skills, and experience. It is helpful to take guidance from the wisdom of Robert Reich, who said,

“A leader is someone who steps back from the entire system and tries to build a more collaborative, more innovative system that will work over the long term.”

Deficiency of interest in the professional and career goals of team members

The Problem: Too often leaders view their world of work from an ego-centric place. This point of view does not make room for engaging in a real interest in the individuals who comprise their team, and are the backbone of their organization. Most employees of an organization are quite aware of the attention and interest (or lack thereof) of their leaders. When a “boss” repeatedly asks mundane questions about a staff member, it soon becomes apparent that listening is not occurring when the employee responds. This becomes more challenging where organizations have large numbers of staff – but it is part of the “homework” a good leader, that is a leader that is not lethargic, takes on. It is vitally important to take an interest in one’s team members, individually, and what their particular professional and career goals are, what there connection to the organization means to them, what are their motivators, and what are the issues they consider to be their challenges. When a leader expresses an interest in his or her team on that level, they will be building trust, dedication, and commitment – qualities that are to be treasured in team members.

The Solution: Simply put … develop a sincere interest in those that work for your organization. Every person who contributes their time, talent, and expertise should be compensated financially of course, but should also be rewarded with your attention, interest, and care. In fact, it a real test of an ego-less leader to care so much about the professional and career goals of individual team members that the leader will help those individuals reach their goals, even if it means that they help them grow out of their jobs and move on to a new organization or employer that is may better fit their desired professional goals and progress. Not to worry, there are always new, talented, smart and eager individuals to bring into your company and onto your team. It is a win-win all the way around. However, remember too, the possibility exists that a particular team member may have a strong desire to stay and grow within the organization, in which case the solution is the great value that comes to all parties by coaching and mentoring and sharing a sense of “ownership” with those employees motivated to stay within the organization. Dedicated, reliable, highly motivated individuals are worth a great deal to any organization and should be treated with the respect they deserve.


Stay tuned for the Liability of Lethargic Leadership, Part II. I’ll discuss a number of additional indicators of lethargic leadership and recommended solutions, including: Avoiding adjustments to work plans based on changing internal and external factors; Inconsistent follow through on “walking the talk”; Lack of desire to roll up one’s sleeves and jump in to work through heavy task loads with the team; Lack of networking with peers and professionals in related businesses; Lack of making contributions to your field of work by making presentations at professional conferences, writing articles, research, and other activities; Letting your day happen to you, rather than taking charge in the creation of your day; and Disengagement from forward looking resource management.

In Part II, I’ll conclude the look at lethargic leadership by examining the truth and wisdom of this statement by Eric Hoffer:

A “leader has to be practical and a realist; yet must talk the language of the visionary and the idealist.”