Laissez faire leadership failure

I was reviewing some old management evaluation posts for a business ethics class that I posted on our online Moodle forum for an organisational behaviour class I took back in 2014. This analysis was in regards to questions regarding evaluating my current manager that remain still relevant despite him occupying another position. Since that post, this particular manager has been moved on from what we were told officially was his excellent management track record. What I cannot confirm either officially or unofficially was that our strategic portfolio was investigated by the corruption and crime commission or better known and obstinately feared in Western Australia as the CCC.

While they were cleared from what I believe was a lack of evidence for serious misconduct, they were held more accountable for minor misconduct if such an investigation took place which I can neither confirm nor deny. So how do I know all this? Well, there was an anonymous report to the CCC, that is clear. I was dragged into the office and the finger squarely pointed at me and questioned at length in clear breach of reporting guidelines. I was repeatedly asked the same question with the same answer every time this time in clear breach of official workplace bullying policy.

Their view was that I had been persecuted and bullied by the management team because I wouldn't engage in unethical and corrupt behaviour so it must be me making the report. Further slanderous comments of 'sour grapes' of my attitude of being overlooked for leadership positions that had been leaked doesn't hold any weight as all positions within the state government work on a merit selection basis where the job has to be advertised with a transparent and reviewable formal process conducted - naturally, none of this occurred.

My short answer posted to the forum in relation to the leadership style of my manager turned out to be eerily accurate:

I actually have very little to do with my manager, this is due to his combination of laissez faire leadership style and his absolute laziness. One should not mistake his laziness for delegation and a participative management style or even empowerment; he simply seeks to unload his work onto others. Arguing against the laissez faire leadership style (OHalloran, 2014, September, 3) suggests “Utilising incompetent people to undertake high-level tasks purely because of enthusiasm in an attempt to force more competent people to work harder is not management, all this does is diminish the capability of the organisation.” Furthermore, favouring people who hold similar religious views is not a principle for rewarding behaviour.

My manager favours certain employee behaviour; they are generally the ones who provide him the least stress allowing him to perform a minimal amount of work. The transformational skills of a leader require communicating a vision, Schermerhorn et al. (2011, p. 316) believes visionary leadership brings a clear sense of the future with an understanding how to achieve this. Likewise, managers require advanced communication skills, OHalloran (2015, January, 5) believes “managers need to place a lesser reliance on hard technical skills instead possessing higher conceptual reasoning as they progress into a management role” Without communication channels utilised, a clear and compelling vision is unable to be communicated to team members.

References

OHalloran, J. (2014, September, 3). What is wrong with TAFE? Observations in an undemocratic world. Retrieved from. http://observationsinanundemocraticworld.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/what-is-wrong-with-tafe.html

OHalloran, J. (2015, January, 5). A functioning manager. Observations in an undemocratic world. Retrieved from. http://observationsinanundemocraticworld.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/a-functioning-manager.html

Schermerhorn, J., Davidson, P., Poole, D., Simon, A., Woods, P., Chau, SL. (2011). Management – Foundations and Applications, 1st Asia-Pacific Edition. John Wiley & Sons Australia.