Bradley Honnor: Five tell-tale signs of a poor leader

Leadership is a skill in its own right that many aspiring and actual leaders do not possess, to the detriment of their team and the organisation as a whole. In this piece, I uncover the five tell-tale signs that are all-to-often evident in the management style of a poor leader.

From engagement deficiencies to communication barriers, each sign is explored to provide a greater understanding of what behaviour to avoid, leading to a better understanding of how to achieve team and organisational goals through motivation, clarity and engagement.

Sign 1: A lack of engagement and interest

Poor leaders are often not positively engaged, which can lead to negativity with their teams. A fixed mindset may lead them dismissing interesting ideas under the pretext that “it’s always been done this way,” causing frustration among team members. In contrast, effective leaders show genuine interest, actively engage in discussions, and are open to new learning opportunities that can benefit the entire team.

Exactly how to behave, however, isn’t always that clear.

The idea of giving team members responsibility and allowing them autonomy is generally viewed positively against a micromanagement style. However, leaders still need to maintain a level of engagement and interest to motivate their team effectively. Finding the right balance of input and management tailored to individual needs is crucial; what constitutes appropriate engagement by one team member might feel like micromanagement to another. Often, leaders apply their personal management style and communication preferences universally, rather than adjusting to meet the specific engagement needs of each team member at any given time.

Sign 2: Inconsistent or unclear communication

Ineffective leaders often fail to communicate well. Not only will they be vague and inconsistent when laying out their vision or providing instruction, but they often rely too much on impersonal methods like emails to issue instructions and tasks. This approach fails to build meaningful connections through personal interactions, leading to misunderstandings, diminished team engagement, and weakened cohesion and effectiveness. Although not every effective leader needs to be an inspiring communicator, avoiding common communication errors is crucial for optimising team performance.

Miscommunication can result in a vague understanding of the organisation’s vision, and members of the senior leadership team (SLT) may also struggle with their specific roles within that vision. If this confusion cascades down to lower levels of the organisation, it can lead to a situation where different levels are not aligned with organisational goals. In contrast, clear and understood objectives across all levels can be very effective, ensuring that every individual is working towards the same aims.

One aspect of leadership communication that is seldom discussed, however, is the responsibility of team members to seek clarity when directions are ambiguous. It’s important that subordinates feel they can ask for clarification if they do not understand the guidance provided.

Sign 3: Inability to understand and balance leadership priorities

A common shortfall among ineffective leaders is their inability to balance the needs of the team, individual team members, and task completion. Often, they won’t even recognise the importance of achieving this balance.

Leaders who focus excessively on individual team members might neglect the fact that a broader team dynamic is necessary for cohesion. Conversely, those who concentrate solely on team performance can overlook the needs and contributions of individual members. Leaders overly preoccupied with tasks can detrimentally affect both team and individual performance.

This issue is particularly evident in the promotion of highly skilled salespeople or technical experts into leadership roles. While these individuals have excelled in their previous roles and are task-oriented, they may struggle to address the broader needs of their team or empathise with the pressures their colleagues face, especially when assigning tasks on short notice.

Similarly, a leader who is overly nurturing may avoid necessary tough conversations, focusing too much on team members’ welfare to the detriment of performance.

Most individuals tend to lead in a style that reflects their personal characteristics rather than adapting to what their team needs. However, an effective leader possesses a more comprehensive skill set. Such leaders consider individual growth, nurture team cohesion, and maintain a clear focus on objectives. They are responsible and accountable. Football managers exemplify this type of leadership, needing to inspire the entire team, support individual performance, and build strategies for success.

Sign 4: Lack of endorsement from colleagues

Throughout leadership training sessions, discussions often arise about the influence of current leadership on the participants, as well as team dynamics and morale.

Effective leaders command respect and instil confidence through their actions, communication, and motivational skills. In contrast, leaders who lack these qualities often do not receive the same level of respect or confidence from their peers.

Leadership trainers will often be able to very quickly pick out good leaders through the positive feedback from subordinates. Conversely, with a problematic leader comments will all too often negative.

Although a leader might deliver results, if their style demotivates the team or leads to high turnover, it undermines their effectiveness. Ultimately, a leader’s success is not just about achieving goals but also about building a positive and productive environment as validated by their team’s feedback and outcomes.

Sign 5: lack of decisiveness

Decision-making can be thought about through a variety of lenses, one of which being the trade-off between collaboration and decision making. While typically seen as a beneficial leadership trait, collaboration can sometimes complicate decision-making processes. It can create a more inclusive environment and promote shared responsibility, yet it can also lead to delays and indecision.

The desire by some leaders to build a team consensus can results in a repetitive loop of meetings, discussions, and revisions. This inclusive approach aims to achieve unanimous agreement, but it can paradoxically lead to decision-making paralysis. Stakeholders may continuously introduce new questions and concerns, halting progress.

A contributing factor to this hesitation, of course, could be the prevailing fear on behalf of the leader of being judged for making poor decisions. In environments where errors are severely criticised and blame is rapidly assigned, there is a natural inclination towards consensus-seeking. This strategy distributes responsibility, and shields individuals from the fallout of unfavourable outcomes.

Case study: give them an inch, and then take it away

I’d like to share my experience with a high-ranking individual at a major manufacturing company. This leader had initially sought my help, proposing the idea of hiring an external consultancy for support. However, setting up meetings proved challenging, as the leader frequently cancelled or appeared distracted during our limited interactions.

This lack of engagement hindered my ability to fully grasp the difficulties faced by the senior leadership team (SLT). Concerns about the leader’s effectiveness were evident from the start, despite his team’s enthusiasm for the intervention. The primary issue was the lack of unity within the SLT, which appeared fragmented under his direction. His communication was often inconsistent and vague, leaving team members unsure of their specific roles and responsibilities. This ambiguity led to confusion and disunity among the team members.

Despite these obstacles, I eventually conducted individual meetings with the leader and all 14 members of the SLT to gather insights into their concerns and aspirations for the team and company. Following these discussions, I arranged a feedback session to discuss the main themes that had emerged. Although the leader reviewed these findings beforehand and discussed them with me, his response during the meeting was unexpected.

After the key findings were presented, the leader abruptly dismissed the proposed action points, opting instead to outline a different path forward. This decision was met with visible dismay from the team, who had expected their feedback to influence the business’s direction. The leader had consistently expressed a desire for his team to operate autonomously, yet contradicted this by rejecting their input when it mattered most.

This case illustrates the complexities of leadership, where a poor leader and a disconnect between expressed intentions and actions can significantly impact team cohesion and morale.