If you’ve hung around here for long, you know healthy leadership is important to me. I’ve experienced some exceptional leadership. I’ve also experienced dysfunctional leadership. One example is deflective leadership.

It wasn’t simply the leaders who deflected responsibility; they fostered an environment of deflected responsibility. It was a divisive environment, because one group of people—those leaders favored—were valued as superior. Others were inferior. We all know everyone has room for improvement. Everyone makes mistakes. But in a professional environment, at least a healthy one, those who are capable usually rise to roles that model competency to others. That competency introduces a culture of accountability to others. There is a standard, and people are encouraged and valued when they meet or exceed expectations.

But these leaders belied their company values. What they verbally stated was important wasn’t confirmed in actions. While they wouldn’t admit it, they practiced and encouraged double standards. When that was mixed with people ill-placed in positions and micro-managed to handle things in ways they should never have been handled, a culture was built where many went through the motions, believing they were dutiful employees. But they weren’t able to think for themselves. They weren’t developing skills or bettering themselves. They weren’t collaborating. They were funneling all things through the people who put themselves at the center of the business-model universe. And if he was happy, and they were rewarded with paychecks and flexible schedules and little oversight, all was well. Leadership might lose their cool every now and then, but it would only result in an uncomfortable day or two before snapping back to normal. After all, there was little accountability in the culture, remember?

When an additional team was brought on board, they weren’t sure what to do. The base organization and dysfunctional leadership were not organized or healthy enough to integrate another team. Despite puffing out their chests about their key leadership, no practical, strategic leadership existed. It was as if they were so accustomed to a hands off, no accountability, let the planets and stars orbit as they will in the universe business model, they didn’t even consider what healthy steps of incorporation might look like. 

It soon became evident there were some undercurrents of what was quietly happening behind the scenes. There were inadequacies, which is a nice way to say there were significant failures that crippled everyday operations. The original team didn’t take responsibility. It wasn’t their fault. Even though they demanded they manage every aspect of the business, any issues were blamed on the additional team. Something they had done must have caused the issue. However, “We don’t want you to be part of the solution. We’ll take care of it. You don’t need access. We are responsible.” 

You are responsible….but you’re not responsible? It’s so confusing. But it’s certainly convenient.

They also didn’t want anything to be put in writing. Zero documentation. There was an atmosphere of paranoia. From the top tier of leadership. It was the oddest characteristic I’d experienced in leadership.

Eventually, a new leader came into the organization, saw what was happening, and the old leaders were replaced. It made sense, because anyone in the outside world, anyone with basic, healthy business experience would see the ludicracy of the dynamics happening. And changes began to happen. However, six to eight months into the transition, an interesting dynamic emerged.

Enough of the old regime remained with deep-seated previous culture roots—the dysfunctional ones that looked toward a leader to orbit around instead of independently think and question and collaborate and challenge. Some concerns had been shut down. Some strong personalities had left. Some key friends had been promoted. Values shifted depending on the situation. A hard approach was taken in one situation, yet a soft approach was taken in another, similar situation, depending on who was involved. Teams were pitted against each other instead of united. Feedback was no longer welcome (unless it matched the person in the center of the orbit); in fact, it was often used against individuals. 

The problem was, by that time, some people had opened their eyes enough and built some relationships across teams to be able to see the discrepancies. However, many people preferred to close their eyes, because, quite frankly, they preferred the old way. It was much more comfortable for them. 

Deflection and accountability cannot coexist. And healthy leadership requires responsibility—from leadership themselves and across the organization. It’s not easy to shift the direction of an organization, because the roots of dysfunction run deep. If you’ve ever seen a field of corn after a strong storm, you might have seen stalks leaned over and think they could never rebound. However, after some sunshine for a day or two, they stand back up. You can try to move people in another direction, but if they’ve been standing and growing in a direction long enough, whether it’s a health or unhealthy direction, they might just bounce back.

If you’re in a position of leadership, and you are rationalizing how you and your team are not deflecting while someone is telling you differently, take the time to reconsider their perspective. And it might not just be about a business situation. It might be a family situation, a friendship, a volunteer group, or a struggle going on within yourself. How responsible are you—truly? How accountable are you—really? How well do you lead others? Are you trustworthy, consistent, self-reflective, fair, and engaged? Do you follow through? Or do you deflect?

Your answers will give you clues if you are honest.