resolving_issues_with_your_boss

06/08/2025:

Resolving Issues with Your Boss (Part 21):

Directive & Task-Focused Leadership Styles

Summary of Part 20B

Part 20B briefly explored and analyzes the thirty distinct leadership styles identified by psychologists over the past century, organizing them into logical groupings to highlight core similarities and meaningful differences in structure, motivation, authority, and decision-making approach.

Introduction

Navigating the complexities of the modern workplace often involves reporting to leaders and prioritizing direction and task completion above all else. While sometimes effective in achieving immediate goals, these directive and task-focused leadership styles can present unique challenges for their subordinates, particularly when conflicts arise.

This essay serves as a subordinate's guide to understanding and resolving disputes when working under leaders employing autocratic, bureaucratic, transactional, coercive or commanding style, task-oriented or initiating structure style, results-oriented style, and pacesetting management approaches. By analyzing the inherent characteristics of each style, its behavior under pressure, and its impact on conflict resolution dynamics, this guide aims to equip subordinates with practical strategies to navigate disagreements, protect their boundaries, and ultimately foster a more productive and respectful working environment, or, when necessary, strategically plan for a dignified exit.

Autocratic Leadership

As defined by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939), autocratic leadership is characterized by a top-down approach where decision-making is centralized. Subordinates under autocratic leaders often face challenges voicing dissent, especially in high-pressure environments where time constraints push leaders to override participatory processes. In such settings, conflict resolution must be cautious and strategic.

Unrealistic disputes—those rooted in miscommunications or inflexible policies—are often dismissed outright. Trust issues are prevalent due to the lack of transparency, making controlled communication a vital strategy. Keeping contemporaneous notes documenting meetings and directives is essential to preserve dignity and self-protection.

When trust cannot be rebuilt, unilateral initiatives consistent with Charles E. Osgood’s GRIT model (1962) can allow the subordinate to de-escalate tensions by taking calculated conciliatory actions. Roger Fisher and William Ury’s Principled Negotiation approach may be difficult to initiate but can be introduced subtly through well-timed suggestions framed in ways that align with the leader’s goals.

Bureaucratic Leadership

Bureaucratic leadership focuses on adherence to rules, procedures, and hierarchical structures. Max Weber’s (1947) theory of rational-legal authority underpins this style, where order and predictability are paramount. In time-constrained situations, bureaucracy can become rigid, impeding adaptability.

Subordinates may experience delays in resolution or find themselves ensnared in procedural loops. In resolving disputes with bureaucratic leaders, the realism of the issue determines the response. Realistic disputes with documentation fare better, while emotional or subjective concerns are often marginalized.

Trust is procedural rather than personal, making contemporaneous notes especially effective when appealing to higher authorities or formal grievance channels.

Phased intercession—gradually escalating the dispute through official channels—can help avoid zero-sum outcomes. Superordinate goals are particularly effective if they align the subordinate’s desired change with broader organizational compliance targets.

Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership, articulated by James MacGregor Burns (1978) and later by Bernard Bass (1985), hinges on clear exchanges: performance for rewards or penalties. Subordinates under transactional leaders often find themselves negotiating their efforts within fixed parameters. Disputes are frequently viewed through a cost-benefit lens, and leaders may be indifferent to interpersonal tensions unless they threaten performance outcomes.

Transactional leaders may double down on corrective actions in high-tension environments, making dispute resolution more difficult. Unrealistic concerns—such as emotional exhaustion or overextension—are often dismissed unless tied directly to metrics. Trust must be established by consistently delivering results, and subordinates should adopt SPIN questioning to reframe problems into cost or productivity implications subtly.

Contemporaneous documentation can demonstrate compliance and expose inconsistencies in performance-based feedback.

Principled negotiations can work if framed around mutual gains, such as efficiency improvements or performance alignment.

Coercive or Commanding Leadership

Coercive or commanding leadership, described by Daniel Goleman (2000), emphasizes immediate compliance, often using pressure and control. This style is exacerbated in high-tension environments, frequently resulting in fear-driven interactions. Subordinates usually find little room to voice disagreement, and disputes are punished or dismissed as defiance. In such cases, it is essential to focus on survival strategies.

Trust is absent mainly or weaponized. Using contemporaneous notes here becomes critical—not only for documentation but for legal protection in worst-case scenarios.

Subordinates should cautiously use unilateral initiatives consistent with GRIT to offer small, safe concessions that do not appear confrontational.

Controlled communication is recommended to depersonalize the dispute and maintain a professional tone. Developing an exit strategy rooted in documented over-compliance and unmet expectations can justify a transition if the conflict becomes intractable.

Task-oriented or Initiating Structure Leadership

Task-oriented leadership, also known as initiating structure, was defined in the Ohio State Leadership Studies, headed by Ralph M. Stogdill and Alvin E. Coons (1957). These leaders emphasize role clarity, task completion, and organizational efficiency.

Subordinates may appreciate the clarity but struggle under inflexible task lists during dynamic or ambiguous workplace changes. When time constraints arise, these leaders double down on structure, often leaving subordinates unable to surface human-centered challenges.

Disputes grounded in realistic task ambiguity or overlapping responsibilities can be resolved through controlled communication and phased intercession. Unrealistic issues, like needing flexible timelines, may require framing through SPIN to appear more reasonable.

Building trust requires demonstrating that proposed changes or requests enhance task completion.

Principled negotiation works best when framed to clarify roles, reduce redundancy, or ensure on-time delivery.

Results-Oriented Leadership

Results-oriented leadership focuses on outcomes rather than processes. These leaders value innovation and efficiency but are often intolerant of delays or explanations that do not correlate directly to performance metrics. The challenge for subordinates is presenting disputes or limitations without appearing like an obstacle to results. Unrealistic disputes—such as burnout, need for rest, or interpersonal frictions—are often ignored unless reframed into productivity terms.

High-tension situations may drive such leaders to micromanage or threaten accountability. Here, SPIN questioning becomes vital to aligning subordinate needs with leader priorities.

Documentation should track outcomes, not just tasks, to build a case for changes or compromises.

If trust is broken, rebuilding requires the subordinate to deliver early wins while introducing principled negotiation for sustainable performance. Superordinate goals can also be effective if they promise greater results from collaborative shifts.

Pacesetting Leadership

Pacesetting leadership, another style described by Daniel Goleman (2000), involves leaders who demand high performance by setting examples themselves. While this may inspire some, it can overwhelm subordinates, especially when expectations are unstated or evolve rapidly.

Pacesetting leaders often increase pressure in time-constrained environments, assume non-performers are weak, and offer little coaching.

Disputes are perceived as weaknesses or excuses, making them difficult to surface. Trust is fragile and easily lost.

Subordinates must prove competence consistently and may need to use unilateral initiatives to demonstrate their commitment. SPIN questioning can subtly introduce constraints or needs by aligning them with better outcomes.

Contemporaneous notes should capture shifting expectations, as they often form the basis for later performance discussions or potential exits. Principled negotiation works only if it enhances excellence or identifies sustainable methods for maintaining the leader’s pace.

Conclusion

Understanding and responding to directive and task-focused leadership styles is critical for subordinates in high-pressure environments. Each style—autocratic, bureaucratic, transactional, coercive, task-oriented, results-focused, and pacesetting—presents unique challenges and opportunities for conflict resolution. Strategic tools like SPIN questioning, principled negotiation, and contemporaneous note-keeping empower subordinates to navigate disputes effectively, protect their boundaries, and maintain professional integrity.

Certain commonalities emerge regarding the subordinate’s strategic position.

When disputes arise, their realism (fact-based, documentable, aligned with performance metrics) directly affects resolution potential. Psychological and physical boundary issues—such as personal time, workspace encroachments, or emotional fatigue—require tactful reframing to gain traction.

Trust is always pivotal; when lost, gaining time to rebuild it requires unilateral efforts and tactical silence.

Avoiding zero-sum games means proposing win-win reframing, such as suggesting adjustments that benefit task completion and human well-being.

In all Directive and Task-Focused styles, contemporaneous notes serve as a memory aid, a negotiation anchor, and in extreme cases, protection for HR or legal exit strategies. These notes should be objective, time-stamped, and detailed enough to reflect unmet obligations and respectful attempts at resolution.

* Note: A pdf copy of this article can be found at:

https://www.mcl-associates.com/downloads/resolving_issues_with_your_boss_part20.pdf

References

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.

Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78-90.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates.” Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 271-299.

Osgood, C. E. (1962). An alternative to war or surrender. University of Illinois Press.

Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). Free Press.

While listening to an audiobook on the Medici by Paul Strathern, I was presented with a historical citation that I knew to be incredibly inaccurate. In a chapter entitled, "Godfathers of the Scientific Renaissance". discussing the apocryphal tale of Galileo's experiment conducted from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, the author cites Neil Armstrong in the Apollo 11 flight to the Moon with its memorable modern recreation, using a hammer and a feather.

Attributing this famous experiment to Armstrong on Apollo 11 is incorrect. It occurred on August 2, 1971, at the end of the last EVA of Apollo 15, presented by Astronaut Dave Scott. To press the point further, Scott used a feather from a very specific species: a falcon's feather. This small piece of trivia is memorable since Scott accompanied by crew member Al Worden arrived on the Lunar surface using the Lunar Module christened, "Falcon".

In an instant, the author's faux pas – for me -- undercut the book's entire validity. In an instant, it soured my listening enjoyment.

Mr. Strathern is approximately a decade my senior. As a well-published writer and historian, it is presumed that he subscribes to the professional standards of careful research and accuracy. Given this well-documented piece of historical modern trivia, I cannot fathom how he got it so wrong. Moreover, I cannot figure out how such an egregious error managed to go unscathed through what I assumed was a standard professional proofreading and editing process.

If the author and the publisher’s many editorial staff had got this single incontrovertible event from recent history wrong, what other counterfactual information did the book contain?

What is interesting to me, is my own reaction or -- judging from this narrative – some might say, my over-reaction to a fairly common occurrence. Why was I so angry? Why could I not just shake it off with a philosophical, ironic shake of the head?

And that is the point: accidental misinformation, spin and out-and-out propaganda -- and the never-ending stream of lies, damned lies, and unconfirmed statistics whose actual methodology is either shrouded or not even attempted -- are our daily fare. At some point, it is just too much to suffer in silence.

I have had enough of it.

God knows I do not claim to be a paragon of virtue. I told lies as a child, to gloss over personal embarrassments, though I quickly learned that I am not particularly good at deception. I do not like it when others try to deceive me. I take personal and professional pride in being honest about myself and my actions.

Do I make mistakes and misjudgments personally and professionally? Of course, I do. We all do. Have I done things for which I am ashamed? Absolutely. Where I have made missteps in my life, I have taken responsibility for my actions, and have apologized for my actions, or tried to explain them if I have the opportunity to do so.

For all of these thoughtless self-centered acts, I can only move forward. There is nothing I can do about now except to try to do grow and be a better human being in all aspects of my life. That's all any of us can do. I try to treat others as I wish to be treated: with honesty and openness about my personal and private needs, and when I am able to accommodate the wants and needs of those who have entered the orbit of my life.

We all have a point of view. Given the realities of human psychology and peer pressures to conform, it is not surprising that I or anyone else would surrender something heartfelt without some sort of struggle. However, we have a responsibility to others -- and to ourselves -- to not fabricate a narrative designed to misinform, or manipulate others.

Lying is a crime of greed, only occasionally punished when uncovered in a court of law
I am sick to death with liars, “alternative facts” in all their varied plumages and their all too convenient camouflage of excuses and rationales. While I am nowhere close to removing this class of humans from impacting my life, I think it is well past the time to start speaking out loud about our out-of-control culture of pathological untruthfulness openly.

Lying about things that matter -- in all its many forms, both overt and covert -- is unacceptable. When does lying matter? When you are choosing to put your self-interest above someone else’s through deceit.

Some might call me a "sucker" or "hopelessly naive". I believe that I am neither. Our species - as with all living things -- is caught in a cycle of both competition and cooperation
We both compete and cooperate to survive.

There is a sardonic observation, “It’s all about mind over matter. If I no longer mind, it no longer matters”. This precisely captures the issue that we all must face: the people who disdainfully lie to us – and there are many – no longer mind. We – the collective society of humanity no longer matter, if for them we ever did.

We are long past the time when we all must demand a new birth of social norms. We all have the responsibility to maintain them and enforce them in our own day-to-day lives. Without maintaining the basic social norms of honesty and treating others as you wish to be treated in return, how can any form of human trust take place?