Passive leadership – worse than you might think?

Have you ever experienced a manager who is reluctant to make decisions, gives little or no feedback on the work you do, or does not meet your need for clear direction? These characteristics are typical of passive leadership.

Passive leadership is also known as “laissez-faire leadership”.

Laissez-faire leadership can be described as a destructive leadership style, and it is the most common form of destructive leadership experienced in workplaces in Norway (Skogstad et al., 2007, Aasland et al., 2010).

In a study by Aasland and colleagues (2010), based on a representative sample of the Norwegian workforce, as many as 21.2% had repeatedly experienced laissez-faire leadership over the previous six months. The study suggests that one in five employees in Norway experiences a manager who is passive and evasive and who shows an absence of leadership. Such a manager is ineffective, and destructive in the sense that they do not meet the legitimate interests of employees and the organisation. Legitimate interests means the rightful and statutory interests that the employee and the organisation are entitled to.

Most people have a need to be seen and to receive recognition for their results.

Rewarding positive progress and involvement in the employee's working day are absent with a passive manager. The manager neglects their tasks, makes minimal effort and shows little consideration for their employees. The manager avoids dealing with employees by maintaining a large social distance. When the manager is perceived as unclear and reluctant to deal with problems, neglecting employees' needs, it creates uncertainty and unpredictability for employees. The manager shows a lack of commitment to recognising and meeting employees' needs for development and well-being.

• Read: Are you managing to create safe arenas in the workplace where everyone is seen and recognised?

Some managers may be conflict-averse and too concerned with being liked by employees, or afraid of making mistakes.

They neglect their duties and responsibilities as managers, which in turn comes at the expense of looking after employees' well-being. It is well documented that this has harmful effects on the working environment and major consequences for the organisation and employees (Hoel et al., 2010; Nielsen, 2013; Skogstad et al., 2007; 2014; 2017; Aasland et al., 2010). It is therefore very important to minimise its prevalence.

There are probably many reasons why passive leadership is so prevalent in Norway, but one feature of leadership in Norway is flat management hierarchies. Employees and managers are on a more equal footing in Norwegian workplaces than in other cultures such as Japan or the US, where the manager is expected to make decisions on their own rather than letting employees have a say. In Norway, on the other hand, it is not as widely accepted that the manager should push decisions through; instead, employees are given a larger part in the decision-making process. Self-leadership is a leadership style that is in vogue at the moment. This can have clear advantages, but one of the disadvantages is that some managers may be reluctant to make decisions for fear of becoming unpopular. Leadership is, moreover, about more than just making clear decisions.

Leadership is “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members” (House et al. 2004). This definition stands in stark contrast to laissez-faire, which is passive and neither motivates, enables nor contributes to the effectiveness and success of its organisation. Laissez-faire leadership is often referred to as “non-leadership” and is characterised by an absence of leadership.

• Read: Supportive leadership as a preventive tool against sickness absence

The manager is not necessarily aware that they are passive and may need to become more aware of their role.

There is no simple answer to passive leadership, and I won't claim to have reinvented the wheel when it comes to preventing passive leadership in Norwegian working life. I can, however, highlight a simple but powerful tool: dialogue. The importance of good dialogue must not be underestimated, especially between manager and employee. Good dialogue strengthens the relationship between manager and employee, which in turn appears to be positively related to satisfaction, performance, lower absence and loyalty to the employer (Risan, H., 2012).

Managers, like everyone else in the workplace, need feedback on their results. Employees are often well placed to give feedback on how they experience their manager, if they are allowed to share their experiences without fear of reprisals.

There is a dilemma when it comes to open communication about development potential.

Negative information is something people consciously or subconsciously avoid giving their manager. A prerequisite is a good culture that makes it possible to raise such points. Platforms or forums that enable good dialogue and lower the threshold for raising development potential are beneficial. Manager and employee should together become aware of the development potential, rather than coming down on the person who shares their experience. Make it clear that you share a common goal of improving the work situation for everyone involved.

Such a culture may sound like an ideal situation, and difficult to achieve in practice. Even so, you should not shy away from striving towards such a culture. The implications are too serious not to.