I worked for a horrible leader once. That leader displayed the following characteristics:
- Back-door deals: rather than respecting the rules in place for the organization, the leader appeared to make a lot of back-door, secret deals giving some privilege over others. These deals mostly served the leader.
- Secrecy: the leader was not transparent, but instead dealt with lots of secrecy.
- Too great ambition: the leader was more concerned with his own ambition, financial success, pleasure, and promotion than the mission of the organization.
- Cliques: the leader created tight cliques which he rewarded regularly -- these cliques worked against a sense of team within the organization.
- Wastefulness: the leader spent a lot of money on glitzy endeavors that resulted in no good growth or development in the organization--these glitzy endeavors appeared to be chosen to pad the leader's resume rather than improve success with regard to the organization's mission.
No leader is perfect as no human is perfect. Most of us are well aware of our own shortcomings, and as I think of this leader's shortcomings though, I realize how his poor leadership truly did negatively affect an organization for a long, long time. How could this have been avoided?
First, it appears that the leader may not have had the needed credentials for his position to begin with. Why did this happen? Was this leader chosen for the wrong reasons? Was he chosen as a favor to someone or to do the bidding of another leader? Did his lack of credentials make him more obedient and obliging to his boss? I don't know, and perhaps he did have the needed credentials, but when choosing leaders, it's essential that those leaders have the required credentials--there's a reason for those requirements.
Second, did the leader above this leader negate his regular responsibility for honest evaluation and development. Was the leader able to get away with his subpar, damaging work because his boss wasn't paying attention or doing the work needed? Did this leader suffer from a lack of good leadership himself?
Was this leader able to bamboozle the other oversight committees in place. Via favors, propaganda, and favors, did he enamor the oversight committees in ways that made them overlook the leader's shortcomings, misdeeds, and abuse of power?
I've also worked for leaders I didn't like, but who were respectful leaders. I didn't like one leader like this because she was not courageous, would not entertain new ideas, and thought of herself as above the rest of us. This leader wore her privilege like a badge with little recognition of how her privilege made her narrow minded at times. Yet, this leader was always respectful, clear, rule-abiding, and credentialed. She did the hard work, displayed a positive demeanor, and often challenged those of us who worked with her in positive ways.
No leader is perfect, but there's a difference between corrupt, self-serving, harmful leaders and leaders who you simply don't like because they may not exhibit characteristics that support you well.
Onward.