Poor Leadership as a Cause of Employee Turnover

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Poor interactions and relationships
Poor leadership
Negative personalities
Conclusion
References

Introduction

There are many reasons for the high rates of employee turnover in certain companies and industries. One of the major reasons is bad bosses. In that regard, there are three main classes of bosses that compel employees to quit. They include the bully boss, the micromanager boss, the workaholic boss, the by-the-numbers boss, and the divisive bosses (Adair 2010). Bad bosses increase employee turnover by lowering the motivation, morale, productivity, and performance of workers. They cause disengagement among employees, job dissatisfaction, and unwillingness to cooperate with other employees in the attainment of organisational goals and objectives (Branham 2012). The largest percentage of the people I Interviewed left because of bad bosses. The behaviours of their supervisors lowered their morale and caused pervasive dissatisfaction because of poor leadership, ineffective interactions and relationships, and negative personalities.

Poor interactions and relationships

Some employees cited poor interactions ad relationships with their bosses as one of the reasons why they left their organizations. Interactions between employees and supervisors are critical because they determine the quality of communication and the responsiveness between the two parties (Adair 2010). According to the leader-member exchange (LMX) theory, leaders develop different relationships with their employees (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy 2012). In the out-group, relationships are primarily based on the need to fulfil contractual requirements and get the job done. In contrast, in-group relationships surpass the need to fulfil contractual obligations and incorporate symbiotic interactions that involve aspects such empowerment and mentoring (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy 2012). Leader-employee relationships are usually formed after an employee joins an organisation.

The leader offers opportunities that are aimed at evaluating the performance of the employee. The outcomes determine the type of relationship the leader forms with the employee. The LMX theory suggests that the leadership making process should include fair and equal treatment of all employees (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy 2012). It is important for leaders to create strong relationships with their subordinates based on trust and honesty. Such relationships lead to the creation of strong teams that work together to achieve organisational goals (Adair 2010). In contrast, out-group relationships favour certain employees and discriminate against others thus resulting in a divisive workforce that exhibits low performance and productivity.

Some employees agreed that poor relationships with their bosses originated from actions such as bullying, humiliation, intimidation, ineffective communication, and over management. Certain employees dealt with bosses who played favourites and as a result caused divisions among employees. Some employees were given more responsibilities and duties while others were not. Opportunities for growth and development were given selectively by the supervisors. Equitable assignment of roles and responsibilities as well as formation of high-quality relationships between bosses and employees is important in preventing employee turnover and increasing employee motivation and job satisfaction (Branham 2012). Certain bosses were detached and spent very little assisting employees address the various issues they faced in their jobs.

Poor leadership

The quality of leadership exhibited by leaders determines the level of employee motivation and job satisfaction (Branham 2012). Leaders adopt different styles depending on their personality traits, competencies, and experiences. Many employees said that they left their jobs because their bosses exhibited poor leadership that excluded them in decision making and that did not value their commitment and hard work. According to the normative decision model, leaders use three main approaches during decision making. These approaches include autocratic processes, consultative processes, and group processes (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy 2012). Many employees cited the use of autocratic processes by heir leaders during decision making. Autocratic processes involve the collection of information from employees by the leader and its subsequent utilization to make decisions without the involvement of employees (Pless & Maak 2012).

In many cases, leaders do not tell their employees the reasons for collecting certain information. Exclusion of employees from the decision-making process causes dissatisfaction and low morale because consultative and group processes involve the contributions of employees to varying degrees (Branham 2012). In the consultative process, the boss shares the problem with employees and asks for their individual opinions. The decision may or may not reflect the contributions of employees. On the other hand, group process involves the active participation of employees (Pless & Maak 2012). The boss only acts as the coordinator of the discussion that employees participate in to generate solutions to specific problems.

Many employees agreed that they left their jobs because their bosses did not involve them in decision making processes even in situations that had direct effect on their jobs and wellbeing. Certain employees stated that exclusion from decision making made them feel unvalued by their organisation. Employee participation allows bosses to leverage human resources by utilizing the varied skills and experiences possessed by employees (Branham 2012). On the other hand, employees feel that they are valued and respected by their organisation. As a result, they become more committed to their work and perform better. In addition, they become highly motivated because they feel in control of their jobs and careers. It is important for leaders to give employees opportunities to contribute in a meaningful way towards the attainment of organisational goals (Pless & Maak 2012).

Active participation increase motivation, job satisfaction, performance, productivity, and lowers employee turnover (Ikor 2012). It is critical for bosses to make employees feel that their jobs have great impacts toward the growth and development of their organisations. Good leaders allow employees to participate in organisational decision making in order to develop their individual decision-making skills (Sandler 2003). Studies have shown that organisations that involve employees in decision making reported higher rates of decision acceptance among employees than in organisations that exclude them (Ikor 2012). In addition, they report higher quality of decisions due to the incorporation of creative and innovative ideas from different employees.

Negative personalities

Another reason that compelled employees to quit their jobs was the personalities exhibited by their bosses and their effects on their jobs. The personalities of leaders determine how they communicate and interact with their subordinate as well as how they treat them (Ikor 2012). Some employees stated that their bosses had bad attitudes and personalities that affected how the communicated and interacted. Certain bosses were supportive and relationship-oriented. On the other hand, others were critical, non supportive, and goal-oriented. Employees who quit cited the latter situation as the cause of their departure from their organisations. According to the contingency model, leaders posses dominant behavioural tendencies that determine how they relate with different employees (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy 2012).

These tendencies are critical to the success of leaders because they are either effective or ineffective in various situations. Relationship-oriented leaders focus on developing good relationships with all their employees because good interactions improve task performance and employee morale (Branham 2012). On the other hand, good relationships enhance the quality of communication between leaders and their subordinates. Poor leaders focus on the achievement of organisational goals and ignore the importance of good leader-follower relationships (Ikor 2012). As a result, they focus on procedures and processes and ignore employee welfare. Employees who encountered this problem stated that the effects of negative personalities in their bosses included increased work-related stress, low performance, absenteeism, low morale due to pervasive negative feedback, and miscommunication.

They found it difficult to talk to their bosses about changes that they experienced while fulfilling their duties. This breakdown of communication led to low quality wok because employees got stuck and could not ask for support from their bosses. In the long term, they lost interest in their jobs because they were no longer motivated to work hard, innovate, and generate creative ideas that could improve their output. Their bosses were not interested in their opinions because they looked at them as mere subordinates whose responsibility was to work and make money for their organisations.

The negative exhibited by leaders also resulted in poor relationships that led to the development of negative attitudes by employees. According to contingency theory, situational favourability is an important aspect that leaders should put into consideration when dealing with employees (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy 2012). Leader-follower relations are critical in determining the favourability of different situations. Cooperation between leaders and their subordinates leads to development of loyalty and trust (Ikor 2012). In contrasts, antagonism between leaders and employees leads to mistrust and lack of loyalty. The employees that left their jobs stated that their bosses were highly critical, unfriendly, and exercised their power over them inappropriately.

The long-term effects of their bosses’ behaviours include lack of loyalty and respect, poor decision making, lack of cooperation, and low performance. The employees did not get any satisfaction from doing their jobs because they were not appreciated and the negative feedback given by their bosses discouraged them and lowered their morale. Good leaders use different styles in dealing with different employees and situations (Branham 2012). They are flexible in the application of their leadership styles. Flexible leaders are more acceptable to employees because modern work environments are dynamic and therefore require constant adjustment to change. According to path-goal theory, there are four leader behaviours namely directive leadership, supportive leadership, participative leadership, and achievement leadership (Hughes, Ginnett & Curphy 2012).

Great leaders incorporate different aspects of these behaviours in their leadership. The theory also suggests that there are two classes of follower variables namely follower satisfaction and follower perception of their capabilities sin relation to their jobs. Employees support leaders whose actions increase their satisfaction with their jobs (Ikor 2012). Leaders who give employees freedom to make decisions and who offer positive feedback increase their employees’ levels of satisfaction because they make them feel in control of their jobs and careers (Sandler 2003).

Conclusion

Many employees leave their jobs because of bad bosses. I interviewed several employees who had left their jobs because of bad bosses and collected information regarding their reasons for leaving. The reasons why they left included poor interactions and relationships, poor leadership, and negative personalities. Their bosses treated the unfairly, looked down on them, offered negative feedback that affected their morale, and exclude the in decision making processes. Their participation in matters that affected their jobs and wellbeing was limited and their bosses made all decisions without contacting them. This led to high levels of dissatisfaction with their jobs because they did not feel valued by their organisations. In addition, they felt that their commitment and hard work was not contributing to the attainment of organisational goals and objectives in a meaningful way.

References

Adair, J 2010, Strategic Leadership: How to Think and Plan Strategically and Provide Direction, Kogan Publishers, New York.

Branham, L 2012, The 7 Hidden Reasons Why Employees Leave: How to Recognize the Subtle Signs and Act Before It’s Too Late, AMACOM Div American Management Association, New York.

Hughes, RL, Ginnett, RC, & Curphy, GJ 2012, Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience, McGraw Hill/Irwin, New York.

Ikor, F 2012, Leadership Styles and Employee Performance: The Impact of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance, Lap Lambert Academic Publishing GmbH KG, new York.

Pless, NM, & Maak, T 2012, Responsible Leadership, Springer Science & Business Media.

Sandler, P 2003, Leadership, Kogan Page Publishers, New York.

Click Here To Order Now!