NOWHERETOHIDE.ORG

16.03.2015 cyber crime, cyber security, employee engagement, insider threat, leadership, management, security threats Comments Off on Seven types of leadership styles that help to develop rogue employees

Seven types of leadership styles that help to develop rogue employees

A short time ago, I authored a post describing how executives are contributing to the development of “rogue” employees; you can read it here:

7 warning signs you’re creating rogue employees.

One reader commented on my post and asked if I would balance the conversation by creating a corollary list that identifies what leaders (and executives) do to create toxic working environments that contribute to the development of rogue employees.

So, I penned the following list of seven caustic categories of leaders that I feel help to create these environments:

1. The reluctant leader: They really didn’t want to be in-charge of people, through words or behaviors, they give you the feeling that they’d rather be back doing “real-work” than being a leader. They will care very little about training and development, innovation, or accountability, and will shun any activities that will cause them to act as a leader.
   • How this develops rogue behavior: Without leadership support, people will begin to act on their own, circumventing security policy and controls to get the job done. In the absence of real leadership many will take the lead, making decisions that are not necessarily in the best interests of the organization.
     
2. The self-centered leader: They are more concerned about their own achievements, and are always worrying about how bad you will make THEM look if you don’t perform well. You’ll hear them talk about the job they want rather than working the one they have. They will have no time for staff that isn’t helping them to look good.
   • How this develops rogue behavior: This demoralizes staff and may lead them to sabotage organizational efforts, especially if senior managers don’t intervene on behalf of the staff. This can result in lost productivity, lost loyalty for the organization, and ultimately loss of good employees.
     
3. The gloom and doom leader: They are negative about everything – we don’t have enough money, our company/agency sucks, management is worthless, just be glad you get a paycheck. They are also the ones who poo-poo on any ideas their staff may offer – “don’t rock the boat, we don’t have the time, we already tried that” – rather than being supportive, they do their best maintain the status quo.
   • How this develops rogue behavior: This too demoralizes the staff and may lead them to hurt the organization. Disheartened staff might also seek external interactions and opportunities that could be exploited by others who want to hurt the organization.
     
4. The sociopath leader: They are quick to tell you how “lucky” you are to have a job, and how important they are to YOUR success. Rarely will they apologize for being wrong, nor will they be concerned about the consequences of their actions, and they will be also the ones to take personal credit for staff accomplishments. They will also be the ones to force polices and rules on their staff that they won’t apply to themselves.
   • How this develops rogue behavior: People working for this type of leader may take on characteristics of the sociopath. In an effort to “win over” the boss, they will take shortcuts, bend the rules, and abuse or hurt other people in the organization. They too will have little regard for security policies, especially ones that they perceive will prevent them from making the boss happy.
     
5. The absent leader: They seem to be busy all the time; with what, no one knows. They are never in their office and never seem to have time for their staff. When they are cornered, they defer you to someone else: “Got a pay problem? Go see HR” or “Looking for advice? Talk to (fill in the blank); just don’t bother me” – no one can nail them down for anything.
   • How this develops rogue behavior: Working under the absent leader is very frustrating, and over time, can lead to people in the organization to simply no longer care. People may try to do their best, but even with best effort, mistakes will be made, and eventually people will get fed up and either leave or take revenge against the leader. Either way, the organization will suffer.
     
6. The interfering leader: They are the micromanagers, distrusting of the abilities of their staff. They love to control every aspect of their organization, believing that they their staff cannot perform as well as they do. If they do delegate work, they will in your knickers every day, questioning staff actions and decisions. Rather than developing their staff, they are more likely to move or remove staff that don’t perform up to their standards.
   • How this develops rogue behavior: Opposite of the absent leader, this one just loves being in control. However, the results will be the same. After a while, people will just give-in to the leader, try to effect revenge on his/her actions, or will pack up and leave, possibly taking organizational information with them.
     
7. The minimalist leader: They just want to do the “absolute minimum” that needs to be done to “check the boxes.” Most likely they have been there for a long time and are quick to warn you not to stick your neck out as it will get cut-off. They will be the ones to tell you “we’re not responsible for that” or “just go back to your cubicle and do your job.” They stomp on any creative or innovative ideas, and suck the life out of their staff.
   • How this develops rogue behavior: Similar to the absent leader, this one actually prevents people from doing the right thing. Over time, this can lead to the same results as many of the other types of leaders described above.

I honestly don’t think that preventing ‘rogue” employees is rocket-science. If you take the time to be genuinely interested in your people’s lives, give them opportunities to grow and be creative, along with the opportunity to contribute to higher organizational goals, and thank them once in a while, they will be much less likely to want to go “rogue” and hurt you or your organization.

But, do the opposite – treat them like furniture, ignore their needs, stomp on their personal goals for growth and development, and yes, they will be pissed off. And, if you piss them off long enough they will:

• Leave your organization (with your proprietary/sensitive information); or
• Do something to sabotage your organization’s success; or even worse
  
• They may just stay-on, get promoted, and be there to piss off everyone else you place beneath them.

I hope this is useful…let me know what you think…

Thanks…r/Chuck

16.11.2014 employee engagement, leadership, management, motivation, Strategy Comments Off on You’re unhappy and unmotivated: You need employee engagement!

You’re unhappy and unmotivated: You need employee engagement!

Wow, I was really enjoying reading this post: Lies We Believe About Employee Engagement until I came to this paragraph:

“Far too many people do not know how to enjoy even the simple things of life and create personal success. They expect others to entertain them, to create opportunity, and even to do the work. Many workers lack the skill and motivation to accept responsibility and accountability. They want to be led but don’t want to follow. They want to be taught but don’t want to learn. And when life deals a blow, they lack the motivation and skill to overcome adversity. Instead they seek pity and help.”

What a crock of crap…i would argue that these are all symptoms of defeat, caused by continual abuse by managers who treat their furniture better than they treat their people.

I submit that every employee on day 1 looks forward to doing meaningful work, at a good wage, to be trained and provided the tools to perform their job, and to be recognized and rewarded for having done well.

Unfortunately, many organizations treat their staff as “human capital” instead of humans, placing them under untrained managers, who learned management from the last generation of untrained managers. They are also subjected to (frankly) stupid administrative rules that seek goals of efficiency over human engagement.

If you truly believe that people “lack motivation” than you really do not understand what motivation is. It is the product of “understanding the value of what you do” and “having the confidence to be successful” and I submit is the organization’s responsibility to address both areas:

• Do your staff r-e-a-l-l-y understand the importance of what they do?; and

• Have you helped them have the confidence to be successful.

It’s important to remember that people (in general) are ALWAYS motivated, they just might not be motivated to do what YOU want them to do. While i agree that selecting the right employees is important, I think it’s what you do with them after you hire them that determines how well they will serve your organization – here are five questions to ask yourself:

1. Did you follow through with all of the promises made to the person you hired? Or did you put them in a different job than you promised?
2. Did you provide them with the training and development you promised them? Or did you say you can’t afford for them to take the time off for that?
3. Did you put them under competent leadership? Or did you stick them under an abusive or untrained manager?
4. Do you provide them with the tools and materials to do their job effectively? Or do you have mounds of bureaucracy and administrative bean counting they must endure to do their jobs?
5. Finally, do you have programs in place to reward and incentivize intrinsic motivation, innovation, and self-direction? Or do you just focus on compliance to “that’s the way we do it here” mentality that kills the human spirit.

Employee engagement (IMHO) is really not that hard – start with treating your employees as human beings, treat staff the way you would want to be treated, and for god’s sake – get rid of those managers that you know you should have let go a long time ago. r/Chuck