​
Especially those who actually know what they are talking about?
I've seen this happen quite a few times, and I don't understand the logic behind making the one who brought up and wanted to address the issue become the problem.
​
I'm looking for perspectives from people who've been in leadership.
Our team had a system that had evolved over several years. Experienced leads removed bottlenecks, improved workflows, and generally made the work more efficient.
A manager (not new, but held the role despite telling us they are looking for a new one to cover us, it's been 6 years) came in and essentially dismantled that structure. Senior people were removed from key responsibilities, and the manager's own picks were put in charge instead. Ironically, some of the strongest performers now have less work, while underperformers have been given more responsibility.
Processes that reduced wasted time were reversed because the manager prefers to follow by protocol (despite following protocol not really having any benefit but having idle time). One of the remaining experienced then-lead's responsibilities were transferred to someone else (manager's pick) without any transparency, a surprise that's honestly questionable given the task requires not just management but technical expertise. The replacement person seems to be recreating many of the same processes but presenting them as something new. The then-lead was then removed and then the org structure eliminated her role and was changed to another title, essentially doing the same work by the replacement.
Recently, one of the manager's chosen people for a lead role stepped back to being an individual contributor after only about three weeks. Shortly afterward, the manager approached me about taking on that role.
Here's my dilemma.
On paper, it's an opportunity. In reality, it feels like a contractor being expected to perform full-time leadership responsibilities without the pay, benefits, or job security that should come with it. This is happening after a restructuring and merger, and I am also from a cheap labor country, so I also suspect the compensation would be lower than what the previous person received. (Note: the recent mamager picks aka replacements are from my country, if this is essential to know).
I'm less concerned about whether I can do the job and more concerned about the environment I'd be stepping into. From where I sit, it looks unstable, politically driven, and willing to sacrifice proven systems without a clear reason.
For those who have managed teams or been in leadership:
Would you take the role for the experience? (Surely, regardless how large/small the offer is, it will help augment my income, so I am tempted to say yes, but I am wondering if the tradeoff is something worth it).
Or is this the kind of situation where the risks outweigh the title?
Are these normal growing pains after a leadership change, or do these seem like red flags?
I'm genuinely interested in hearing how experienced leaders would evaluate this situation.
In many organizations, workers anticipate that the work will vary. There are some weeks when the task load will be higher than usual, and priorities will shift frequently. However, there is an additional phenomenon that many workers encounter without understanding it fully. These individuals become available for work, they want to do something for their bosses, but all of a sudden, they are not provided with any tasks by their superiors.
There are no warnings in this case, nor any direct criticisms. The individual concerned does not have any uncomfortable talks with his or her human resources department representative. There is just no work assigned to him or her.
From the perspective of a worker, the situation may become quite confusing as it is not communicated formally what is going on. The individual is still employed officially; the worker must still report to work; however, the person becomes progressively detached from work-related activities.
The relevant recent article was published in the Journal of Business and Psychology and focused on the disengagement reactions related to laissez-faire leadership and job withdrawal behavior.
A softer form of distancing
In many organizations, managers are tasked with dealing with conflict, performance issues, and team communication. However, some leaders do not respond to discomfort in such an aggressive manner. They withdraw.
Instead of talking about the problem or making expectations clear, they start distancing themselves from the interaction itself. They give fewer assignments. They reduce communication frequency. They send out fewer invites for joint discussions. Employees might end up being marginalized without understanding the reasons behind it.
According to research published in the Journal of Business and Psychology, laissez-faire leadership is characterized by low involvement, delayed decisions, and limited feedback. Studies cited in the research associate this leadership style with role ambiguity, stress, and lower job satisfaction among employees.
Also, the silence speaks volumes. The worst part about the situation is that there is no clarity. Employees will have to guess whether it is due to organizational problems, poor employee performance, or the start of the divorce process.
Another aspect of the situation might be attributed to something known as “moral disengagement” within organizational psychology. As stated in an article in the Journal of Business Ethics, moral disengagement permits individuals to separate themselves mentally from any ethical ramifications of their behavior. In the workplace setting, this could manifest itself in a number of ways.
For managers, not being willing to communicate directly with someone can become an excuse for depriving them of any tasks at all, as if they were justified or unavoidable. The effect here is one of exclusion on the manager’s part, as he or she will avoid communicating with the person in question and hence distancing himself or herself from him or her.
The behavior itself may not necessarily be intentional or malicious. In some cases, it could be driven purely out of avoidance of conflict. However, its effect on employees will probably not be negligible.
The psychological effect on employees
Work provides not only money but also an identity, order, and a feeling of contributing something.
As soon as tasks stop appearing for no apparent reason, the person starts doubting whether his contribution in the company is needed. The lack of clarity itself creates stress since there is nothing to work out or react to.
Ambiguity may be detrimental to trust. Lack of communication makes employees guess on their own what is happening. Minor changes in the workplace acquire extra importance. Silence becomes synonymous with judgment.
Emotional ambiguity often impacts performance way before any actions are taken.
A certain set of employees counteract such situations in a proactive manner.
The same studies mention "job crafting" as an initiative, whereby the employees take responsibility upon themselves to change some aspects of their job, acquire new duties, etc., all in pursuit of engagement and meaning in their professional activity. They do not stand idle but try to build some structure on their own.
In healthy organizations, such behavior might lead to increased motivation and resilience of workers.
Nevertheless, there are certain boundaries of such initiatives. The fact of the matter is that not every worker possesses sufficient power and freedom to independently define his/her new obligations. Prolonged disengagement on the part of management may undermine individual efforts.
This explains the importance of communication.
Withdrawal from a job quietly does not seem like as flashy a move as discipline, but that does not mean it will not change the dynamics of the office.
It is not just formal policies that drive an employee’s actions; it is the messages sent about feeling included, respected, and psychologically safe on the job. When leaders withdraw without communicating, the implications reach farther than just one person.