The CEO who gets caught embezzling money, taking bribes or exposed in disreputable affairs induces his or her own demise, makes headlines and is justly condemned. However, at the other end of the spectrum, the paralyzed, apprehensive leader is equally dangerous — and far more common.
Ron Carucci, co-founder and managing partner at Navalent, detailed the findings of a 10-year longitudinal study that included 2,700 interviews with more than 100 newly transitioned executives in Harvard Business Review. The study found that "while the data warned against the allure of using power for self-interest, we saw the greater challenge of power wasn't exploiting it, but abdicating it," according to the report.
Most leaders today recognize the value and importance of an engaged workforce, which is largely influenced by making direct reports feel valued and included. However, attempting to achieve this may cause leaders to rein in the power they exercise. The study found many leaders felt frozen by the desire to be liked or "in fearful avoidance of catastrophic error," making them feel powerless, according to Mr. Carucci. Sixty percent of participants believed people attributed more power to them than they thought they actually had, and nearly half of respondents said the power accompanying their jobs was insufficient to execute the objects they were responsible for.
At the same time, such leaders are often guilty of relinquishing the power they do yield. Mr. Carucci and his fellow study authors identified four recurring and detrimental ways leaders do this.
1. Paralysis. This is one of the most common forms of abdication, and it can have severe effects on the organization, according to Mr. Carucci. Leaders who cannot stick to a decision or are swayed by the last person to voice an opinion only create confusion and unrest.
2. Over-inclusion. Although it is important to include other people's input when making a decision, it is ultimately up to the leader to decide what is best for his or her organization. Fearful leaders often believe involving a lot of people in the decision-making process disperses risk, lessening the potential repercussions directed at them should the decision yield negative outcomes. "Over-including people at the expense of action isn't consensus-building, it's hiding," Mr. Carucci wrote.
3. Compromising too much, or "pandering to the agendas of others at the expense of a greater good" is highly destructive to an organization, according to Mr. Carucci. It is senior leaders' responsibility to dictate the strategic direction of an organization. In doing so, they can still leave room for others to take ownership and control over individual projects.
However, "Doling out 'yeses' to resource requests for individuals' agendas 'so they feel ownership' is not empowerment, it's abandonment," according to Mr. Carucci. "Narrowing priorities and focus to strengthen execution is one of an executive's greatest unifying contributions."
4. Putting up with poor performance. Poor performance is most commonly found in organizations where people are confused by an abundance of competing priorities and are forced to deal with poorly allocated resources, according to Mr. Carucci. When priorities change on a daily basis, people stop taking their responsibilities seriously, which reduces their commitment and dilutes results.