Q: What does a lack of leadership look like?

A: I think most people would agree that strong leadership is an important criteria for the success of an organization. I also think that most people would resist investing in leadership development, and would even go so far as to promote poor leadership (albeit unwittingly), because they cannot define, measure, or differentiate the good stuff from the bad.

Assuming that good leadership “looks like” an organization that executes as well as can be expected under the circumstances, what does a lack of good leadership look like? How can we tell if Michael Brown did “a heck of job” in an impossible situation during Hurricane Katrina, or if he was in over his head? Here is a checklist of descriptors for poor or absent leadership. You can use this checklist to form a rough assessment about your own organization’s leadership. Be aware that great leaders, who are admittedly rare, will obtain a score of zero. (Adapted from a list created by Warren Bennis in Organizing Genius):

–Signs of a LACK of leadership–

Sloppy, inconsistent execution. Deadlines are so frequently missed that new ones are often ignored.
No single leader. People will recognize the formal leader based on the chain of authority, and then will give additional–and different–names of people who they believe to be the real driving forces behind the work. They will recognize a lack of alignment amongst the various leaders.
Cynical followers. Poor leaders are unable to paint a compelling vision of tomorrow. They espouse opinions rather than push for action. They dampen, rather than harness, the innate optimism of their followers.
No external enemy. The organization battles itself rather than outside forces.
Complacency based on previous or current successes. New threats are systematically dismissed without adequate analysis.
People and teams do not play to their strengths. Individuals obtain the positions they want, instead of being coaxed into positions where they can contribute most meaningfully.
Work is driven exclusively by a system of rewards and punishments. Management uses “the carrot and the stick,” while followers fail to take ownership of, or even interest in, a job well done; the organization is devoid of intrinsically motivated followers.
A lack of identity. The organization has no readily identifiable elements such as a particular language or location (a location can be geographic, or it can refer to a spot on the org chart). New individuals cannot be “onboarded” because the organization itself is not clearly defined.
A lack of clear boundaries. Players come and go seemingly haphazardly. Instructions, goals, and strategic directions–heavily influenced by a large number of people inside and outside the organization–change frequently.
Frequent power struggles. Individuals circumvent formal channels to establish control over their own relationships, resources, and processes, without reprocussion. To the outside world, the organization is perceived as being disorganized and in conflict.
General apathy. No connection is made between the work individuals do and a greater good.
A prevailing sense of fear. People hesitate to bring issues, opportunities, and questions up through the chain of command because of fear–real or imagined–of getting fired, disciplined, ignored, or ridiculed. Leadership dismisses these fears as a sign of poor quality talent, and neither seeks to understand these fears nor abates them.
Learning is given little emphasis. The impact of ongoing education on generating sustained, maximum results is significantly underestimated.
Expectations are less than demanding. Leadership’s highest goals are achievable with followers’ sub-optimal efforts.
Followers are treated equally rather than equitably. A one-size-fits-all approach is adopted for rewards (and punishments), resulting in inconsistent results. The alternative, an individualized process that yields a consistent impact across followers, is dismissed as being either too coddling or too expensive.
A lack of attention to talent. When someone leaves, the true impact of that person’s departure on the group’s identity and ability is not correctly understood and is left unresolved. The strongest players, rather than acting as a force that drives team unity and pride, consistently act divisively and/or leave.

If you are your team’s leader, you may be a little uncomfortable right now. I certainly was when I first read through this post! That’s OK: no one’s perfect. The question is, do you have the ability and willingness to change? Do you have the courage to admit where you fall short so you can get the help you need to improve?

The great teams, and great leaders, Warren Bennis was looking at when he created the list from which the above is adapted included the best of the best; these were groups such as Lockheed Martin’s famous Skunkworks, Xerox’s PARC team… the Apple team that “stole” and subsequently commercialized their computer… Oppenheimer’s team at Los Alamos, Disney’s Snow White animation team, at others at the top of their game. So if you fall short, don’t sweat it. But don’t dismiss it, either!

Jason Seiden is Co-founder and CEO of Ajax Social Media, a training company that shows professionals how use social media to work more effectively.