 |
Click here. |
Sunday, June 30, 2019
Saturday, June 29, 2019
Friday, June 28, 2019
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Monday, June 24, 2019
Leading Human Resources: An Analysis: (part 18)
Leadership, Perception, and the Impact of Power
by
Charles Lamson
The concepts of leadership and power have generated lively interest, debate, and often confusion throughout the evolution of management thought. The concept of power is closely related to the concept of leadership, for power is one of the means by which a leader influences the behavior of followers. Given this integral relationship between leadership and power, leaders must not only assess their leader behavior in order to understand how they actually influence other people, but they must also examine their possession and use of power.
 |
Power Defined In an earlier post, we defined leadership as an attempt to influence another individual or group and concluded that leadership is an influence process. Power is influence potential---the resource that enables a leader to gain compliance or commitment from others. Despite its critical importance, power is a subject that is often avoided, because power can have its seamy side, and many people want to wish it away and pretend it is not there. But power is a real-world issue. Leaders who understand and know how to use power are more effective than those who do not or will not use power. To successfully influence the behavior of others, the leader should understand the impact of power on the various leadership styles. In today's world, many sources of power within organizations have been legislated, negotiated, or administrated away. Leaders now have less of some types of power to draw from, so it is important to use effectively what is available. Because power bases drive leadership styles, using them appropriately can enhance your effectiveness as a leader. In spite of widespread usage of the term power in the management literature, there are many definitions. James Hillman reports that power's ". . . rather innocent definition is simply the agency to act, to do, to be, coming from the Latin potere, to be able . . . power can be defined as sheer potency or potentiality, not the doing, but the capacity to do." David C. McClelland and David H. Burnham have defined power as "influencing others." John B. Miner defined power as ". . . the ability to induce a person to do something he or she would not otherwise have done." Miner goes on to write, "Influence is a broader concept, referring to anything a person does to alter the behavior, attitudes, values, feelings, and such of another person. . . . Power is thus one form of influence." Stephen P. Robbins suggests, "Power refers to a capacity that A has to influence the behavior of B, so that B does something that he or she would not otherwise do. This definition implies (1) a potential that need not be actualized to be effective, (2) a dependence relationship, and (3) that B has some discretion over his or her own behavior." We will use M.F. Rogers' simple definition of power as "the potential for influence." Thus, power is a resource that may or may not be used. The use of power resulting in a change in the probability that a person or group will adopt the desired behavioral change is defined as "influence." Accepting Rogers' definition, we make the following distinction between leadership and power. As was suggested in an earlier post, leadership is defined as the process of influencing the activities of an individual or a group in efforts toward accomplishing a goal in a given situation. Therefore, leadership is simply any attempt to influence; power is a leader's influence potential. It is the resource that enables a leader to influence. Power: An Eroding Concept If power is defined as influence potential, how does one describe authority? Authority is a particular type of power that has its origin in the position that a leader occupies. Thus, authority is the power that is legitimized by virtue of an individual's former role in a social organization. Hundreds of years ago, serfs had no power; kings and queens had all the power. Their positions gave them ultimate authority. For years, managers were almost like kings and queens. They could make all the decisions. If they did not like the way you looked or the way you combed your hair, they could fire you, and workers could do very little to stop such arbitrary action. Today, that is no longer the case. Position Power and Personal Power One of the characteristics of leadership is that leaders exercise power. Amitai Etzioni discussed the difference between position power and personal power. His distinction resulted from his concept of power as the ability to induce or influence behavior. He claimed that power is derived from an organizational office, personal influence, or both. Individuals who are able to induce other individuals to do a certain job because of their position in the organization are considered to have position power; individuals who derive their power from their followers are considered to have personal power. Some individuals can have both position power and personal power. Where do managers get the position power that is available to them? Although Etzioni would argue that it comes from the organizational office of a manager; we feel it comes from above and, therefore, is not inherent in the office. Managers occupying positions in an organization may have more or less position power than their predecessor or someone else in a similar position in the same organization. Position power is the extent to which those people to whom managers report are willing to delegate authority and responsibility down to them. So position power tends to flow down in an organization. This is not to say that leaders do not have any impact on how much position power they accrue. They certainly do. The confidence and trust they develop with the people above them will often determine the willingness of upper management to delegate down to them. And remember, whatever power is delegated downward can be taken back. We have all seen this occur on occasions when managers still have the same responsibilities, but all of a sudden their authority (to distribute rewards and sanctions) to get the job done in the way they once did is taken away.  Personal power is the extent to which followers respect, feel good about, and are committed to their leader and to which they see their own goals as being satisfied by the goals of their leader. In other words, personal power is the extent to which people are willing to follow a leader. As a result, personal power in an organizational setting comes from below---from the followers---and so flows up in an organization. Thus, we must be careful when we say that some leaders are charismatic or have personal power that flows from them. Personal power is not inherent in the leader. If it were, managers with personal power could take over any department and have the same commitment and rapport they had in their last department. We know that they cannot. Although managers certainly can influence the amount of personal power they have by the way they treat their people, it is a volatile kind of power. It can be taken away rapidly by followers. Make a few dramatic mistakes and see how many people are willing to follow. Personal power is a day-to-day phenomenon---it can be earned and it can be taken away. Etzioni suggested that the best situation for leaders is when they have both personal power and position power. But, in some cases, it is not possible to build a relationship on both. Then, the question becomes whether it is more important to have personal power or position power. Happiness and human relations have been culturally reinforced over the past several decades. With this emphasis, most people would pick personal power as being the most important. But there may be another side of the coin. In his sixteenth-century treatise The Prince, Machiavelli presented an interesting viewpoint when he raised the question of whether it is better to have a relationship based on love (personal power) or fear (position power). Machiavelli, as did Etzioni, contended that it is best to be both loved and feared. If, however, one cannot have both, he suggested that a relationship based on love alone tends to be volatile, short-lived, and easily terminated when there is no fear of retaliation. On the other hand, a relationship based on fear tends to be longer-lasting, because the individual must be ready to incur the sanction (pay the price) before terminating the relationship. This is a difficult concept for many people to accept. One of the most difficult roles for leaders---whether they be a supervisor, teacher, or parent---is disciplining someone about whom they care. Yet, to be effective, leaders sometimes have to sacrifice short-term friendship for long-term respect if they are interested in the growth and development of the people with whom they are working. Machiavelli warned, however, that one should be careful that fear does not lead to hatred. For hatred often evokes overt behavior in terms of retaliation, undermining, and attempts to overthrow.  In summary, position power can be thought of as the authority, which is delegated down, to use rewards and sanctions. Personal power is the cohesiveness, commitment, and rapport between leaders and followers. It is also affected by the extent to which followers see their own goals as being the same, similar to, or at least dependent upon the accomplishment of the leader's goals. Although personal and position power are distinct, they are an interacting influence system. Often, followers are affected by their perception of the leader's ability to provide rewards, punishments, and sanctions and of the leader's influence up the organization. Also, the extent to which people above you in the organization are willing to delegate position power is often dependent on their perception of the followers' commitment to you. So it is not sufficient just to have either position or personal power alone---you need to work at gaining both. Selling Within Your Own Organization It is important to keep in mind that no matter where you are within your organization, you are trying to influence people. If you are managing, you can use both position power and personal power to influence the people who report directly to you. When attempting to influence your supervisor, senior executives, and associates, however, you must depend almost exclusively on personal power, you must learn to develop rapport through personal power, because it is through this trust and confidence that an effective relationship can be built. Figure 1 illustrates this important idea. Keep in mind that power is a real-world issue. People who understand and know how to use power are more effective than those who do not or will not. Recognition of the fact that all managers are in the business of selling is an important aspect of this understanding. Figure 1 Selling Up/Managing Down   *SOURCE: MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR: LEADING HUMAN RESOURCES, 8TH ED., 2001, PAUL HERSEY, KENNETH H. BLANCHARD, DEWEY E. JOHNSON, 204-208*
end
|
Saturday, June 22, 2019
Leading Human Resources: An Analysis (part 17)
Top stories
Readiness Defined
by
Charles Lamson
Readiness in Situational Leadership is defined as the extent to which a follower demonstrates the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task.
 |
People tend to be at different levels of readiness depending on the task they are being asked to do. Readiness is not a personal characteristic; it is not an evaluation of a person's traits, values, age, and so on. Readiness is how ready a person is to perform a particular task. This concept of readiness has to do with specific situations---not with any total sense of readiness. All persons tend to be more or less ready in relation to a specific task, function, or objective that a leader is attempting to accomplish. Thus, a salesperson may be very responsible in securing new sales, but very casual about completing the paperwork necessary to close on a sale. As a result, it is appropriate for the manager to leave the salesperson alone in terms of closing on sales, but to supervise closely in terms of paperwork until the salesperson can start to do well in that area, too.
In addition to assessing the level of readiness of individuals within a group, a leader may have to assess the readiness level of the group as a group, particularly if the group interacts frequently in the same work area, as happens with students in the classroom. Thus, a teacher may find that a class as a group may be at one level of readiness in a particular area, but a student within that group may be at a different level. When the teacher is one-to-one with the student, the teacher may have to behave very differently than with working with the class as a group. In reality, the teacher may find a number of students at various readiness levels. For example, the teacher may have one student who is not doing the assigned work regularly, and when the work is turned in, it is poorly organized and not very well done. The teacher may have to initiate some structure and supervise that student closely. Another student, however, may be doing good work but may be insecure and shy. With that student, the teacher may not have to engage in much task behavior in terms of schoolwork, but may need to be supportive, to engage in two-way communication, and to help facilitate the student's interaction with others in the class. Still another student may be competent and confident in the schoolwork and thus can be given minimum assistance. So leaders have to understand that they may have to behave differently one on one with members of their group from the way they do with the group as a whole.
The two major components of readiness are ability and willingness.
Ability is the knowledge, experience, and skill that an individual or group brings to a particular task or activity.
The components of ability are demonstrated knowledge, skill, and experience. They are defined as follows:
When considering the ability level of others, one must be task-specific. A person who has a Ph.D, in music and 20 years of professional experience playing the piano may be of little help in the design of a new jet engine. It is essential to focus on the specific outcome desired and to consider the ability of the followers in light of that outcome.
The components of willingness are demonstrated confidence, commitment, and motivation. They are defined as follows:
Willingness is only one word that describes the issue. Sometimes, it isn't so much that people are really unwilling, it is just that they have never done a specific task before. Perhaps they do not have any experience with it, so they are insecure or afraid. In general, if it is an issue of never having done something, the problem is insecurity. The term unwilling might be most appropriate when, for some reason, the individuals have slipped, or lost some of their commitment and motivation. It might imply that they are regressing.
Even though the concepts of ability and willingness are different, it is important to remember that they are an interactive influence system. This means that a significant change in one will affect the whole. The extent to which followers bring willingness into a specific situation affects the use of their current ability. And it affects the extent to which they will grow and develop competence and ability. Similarly, the amount of knowledge, experience, and skill brought to a specific task will often affect confidence, commitment, and motivation. Readiness levels are the different combinations of ability and willingness that people bring to each task (see Figure 1).
The continuum of follower readiness can be divided into four levels. Each represents a different combination of follower ability and willingness or confidence:
 Ron Campbell of the Center for Leadership Studies has expanded the continuum of follower readiness (see Figure 1) to include behavioral indicators of the four readiness levels. Each level represents a different combination of follower ability and willingness or confidence. As shown in Figure 2, indicators of a person at R1 for that specific task would be such behaviors as not performing the task to an acceptable level or being intimidated by the task. Figure 2 Readiness Level 1 (R1) 
Because it is important to assess whether a person is unable and insecure, Campbell further refined these readiness indicators to help differentiate between the two R1 readiness states. Specifically, an unable and unwilling R1 would exhibit:
An unable and insecure R1 would exhibit:
The following paragraphs will present indicators for the three remaining readiness levels R2's indicators are indicated in Figure 3. Specifically, an unable but willing or confident R2 would:
Figure 3 Readiness Level 2 (R2)
R3's indicators are illustrated in Figure 4. Specifically, an able but unwilling R3 would:
Figure 4
Readiness Level 3 (R3)
An able but insecure R3 would:
R4's indicators are illustrated in Figure 5. Specifically, an able and willing or confidant R4 would:
Figure 5 Readiness Level 4 (R4)
These indicators are important clues to follower readiness. Just as a physician must use clues in diagnosing patient illness, leaders must be alert for clues in follower behavior as a critical step to correctly diagnosing readiness.
*SOURCE: MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR: LEADING HUMAN RESOURCES, 8TH ED., 2001, PAUL HERSEY, KENNETH H. BLANCHARD, DEWEY E. JOHNSON, PGS. 175-180*
end
|
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Leading Human Resources: An Analysis (part 16)
TOP STORIES
Arkansas River Outfitters Association Offers Tips for Fun, Safe River ...
PRNewswire (press release)-10 hours ago
Choose a member of the Arkansas River Outfitters Association. Members adhere to and often exceed state licensing requirements and follow a ...
Fremont County authorities searching for body in Arkansas River
Canon City Daily Record-Jun 17, 2019
The Cañon City Fire Department was called out on a report of a person struggling in the river Sunday night near Ash and the Riverwalk, and ...
Mold caused by the Arkansas River flooding could be making you sick
THV11.com KTHV-17 hours ago
The historic flooding of the Arkansas River left behind all sorts of problems for people along the water, including issues with allergies. Dr. Eddie ...
Developing Strategies
by
Charles Lamson
Changing Style
One of the most difficult changes to make is a complete change in the style of a person, yet industry invests many millions of dollars annually for training and development programs that concentrate on changing the style of its leaders. As Fiedler suggested:
A person's leadership style reflects the individual's basic motivational and need structure. At best it takes, one, two, or three years of intensive psychotherapy to effect lasting changes in personality structure. It is difficult to see how we can change in more than a few cases an equally important set of core values in a few hours of lectures and role playing or even in the course of a more intensive training program of one or two weeks.
 |
Fiedler's point is well taken. It is indeed difficult to effect changes in the styles of managers overnight. Although not completely hopeless, it is a slow and expensive process that requires creative planning and patience. In fact, Rensis Likert found that it takes from 3 to 7 years, depending on the size and complexity of the organization, to implement a new management theory effectively. Haste is self-defeating because of the anxieties and stresses it creates. There is no substitute for ample time to enable the members of an organization to reach a level of skillful and easy, habitual use of the new leadership style.
What generally happens in current training and development is that managers are encouraged to adopt certain normative behavior styles. In our culture, these styles are usually high relationship---low task or high task-high relationship styles. Although we agree that there is a growing tendency for these two styles to be more effective than the high task-low relationship or low relationship-low task styles, we recognize that this is not universally the case even in our own culture. In fact, it is often not the case even within a certain work group. Most people might respond favorably to the high relationship styles, but a few might react in a negative manner, taking advantage of what they consider a soft touch. As a result, certain individuals will have to be handled in a different way. Perhaps they will respond only to close supervision (a high task-low relationship style). Thus it is unrealistic to think that any of these styles can be successfully applied everywhere. In addition to considering application, it is questionable whether every leader can adapt to one normative style.
Most training and development programs do not recognize these two considerations. Consequently, a foreman who has been operating as a task-oriented, authoritarian leader for many years is encouraged to change style---get in step with the times, Upon returning from the training program, the foreman will probably try to utilize some of the new relationship-oriented techniques. As long as things are running smoothly there is no difficulty in using them. The minute an important issue or a crisis develops, however, the foreman tends to revert to the old basic style and vacillates between the new relationship-oriented style and the old task-oriented style, which has the force of habit behind it. The problem is that the style the foreman has used for a long time is not compatible with the new concepts.
This idea was supported in a study that General Electric conducted at one of its turbine and generator plants. In this study, the leadership styles of about 90 foremen were analyzed and rated as "democratic," "authoritarian," or "mixed." In discussing the findings, Saul W. Gellerman reported that
the lowest morale in the plant was found among those men whose foremen were rated between the democratic and authoritarian extremes. The GE research team felt that these foremen may have varied inconsistently in their tactics, permissive at one moment and hard-fisted the next, in a way that left their men frustrated and unable to anticipate how they could be treated. The naturally autocratic supervisor who is exposed to human relations training may behave in exactly such a manner . . . a pattern which will probably make him even harder to work for than he was before being "enlightened."
In summary, changing the style of managers is a difficult process and one that takes considerable time. Expecting miracles overnight will only lead to frustration and uneasiness for both managers and their employees. Consequently, we recommend that change in overall management style in an organization be planned and implemented on a long-term basis so that expectations can be realistic for all involved.
Changes in Expectations versus Changes in Style
Using the feedback model (see Figure 1), we can begin to explain why it is so difficult to make changes in leader style in a short period of time. When a person behaves in a motivating situation, that behavior becomes a new input to the individual's inventory of past experience. The earlier in life this input occurs, the greater its potential effect on future behavior. At that time, this behavior represents a larger portion of the individual's total past experience than the same behavior input will later in life. In addition, the longer a behavior is reinforced, the more patterned it becomes and the more difficult it is to change. That is why it is easier to make personality changes early in life. As a person gets older, more time and new experiences are necessary to effect a change in behavior.
Figure 1
Feedback Model
Changes in behavior are much more difficult and time-consuming than are changes in knowledge and attitudes if force is not a factor. Because changes in expectations, in reality, are changes in knowledge and attitudes, these can be implemented more rapidly than can changes in style. In fact, changes in expectations may be accomplished merely by having leaders sit down and clarify what their behavior will be with the individuals involved. Once they understand their leader's style, followers can more easily adjust their expectations to it.
Changing Situational Variables
Recognizing some of the limitations of training and development programs that concentrate only on changing leadership styles, Fiedler suggested that "it would seem more promising at this time to teach the individual to recognize the conditions under which he can perform best and to modify the situation to suit his leadership style." This philosophy, which he calls organizational engineering, is based on the following assumption: "It is almost always easier to change a man's work environment than it is to change his personality or his style of relating to others." Although we basically agree with Fiedler's assumption, we feel that changes in both are needed, and both are difficult but possible. Fiedler is helpful, however, in suggesting ways in which a leadership situation can be modified to fit the leader's style. These suggestions are based on his leadership contingency model. That model lists three major situational variables that seem to determine whether a given situation is favorable or unfavorable to leaders: (1) leader-member relations---leader's personal relations with the members of their group; (2) position power---the power and authority that their position provides; and (3) task structure---the degree of structure (routine versus challenging) in the task that the group has been assigned to perform. The changes in each of these variables that Fiedler recommended can be expressed in task or relationship terms; each change tends to favor either a task-oriented or a relationship-oriented leader, as illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1 Changes in the Leadership Situation to Fit Leader's Task or Relationship Style
 
With changes such as these, Fiedler suggested that the situational variables confronting leaders can be modified to fit their style. He recognized, however, that the success of organizational engineering depends on training individuals to be able to diagnose their own leadership style and the other situational variables. Only when they have accurately interpreted these variables can they determine whether any changes are necessary. If changes are needed, leaders do not necessarily have to initiate any in their own particular situation. They might prefer to transfer to a situation that better fits their style. In this new environment, no immediate changes may be necessary.
*SOURCE: MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR: LEADING HUMAN RESOURCES, 8TH ED., 2001, PAUL HERSEY, KENNETH H. BLANCHARD, DEWEY E. JOHNSON, PGS. 162-166*
end
|
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Saturday, June 15, 2019
Leading Human Resources: An Analysis (part 15)
Top stories
Interaction of Style and Leadership
by
Charles Lamson
 |
Style is a larger component of the advertising agency manager's job than of the army sergeant's. Although the mix varies from job to job, behavior in an organization remains a function of both style and expectations and involves some combination of task and relationship behaviors.
Leader's Style and Expectations
One of the most important elements of a leadership situation is the style of the leader. Leaders develop their style over a period of time from experience, education, and training. Robert Tannenbaum and Warren Schmidt suggested that there are at least four internal forces that influence a manager's leadership style: value system, confidence in employees, personal inclinations, and feelings of security in an uncertain situation.
A manager's value system consists of the answers to such questions as: How strongly does a manager feel that individuals should have a share in making the decisions that affect them. How convinced is the manager that the person who is paid to assume responsibility should personally carry the burden of decision making? The strength of a manager's convictions on questions such as these will tend to affect that manager's leadership style, particularly in terms of the amount of direction or support that manager is willing to provide for staff members.
Confidence in employees is often influenced by the manager's assumptions about human nature. In other words, the amount of control or freedom a manager gives to staff members depends on whether that manager believes that people are basically lazy, unreliable, or irresponsible or that people can be creative and self-motivated in an environment, if properly motivated. In addition, a manager's confidence in employees also depends on feelings about the knowledge and competence of staff members in a particular area of responsibility.
A manager's personal inclinations have an impact on leadership style. Some managers are comfortable being directive (controlling and supervising). Others operate more comfortably in a team situation in which they provide some direction or facilitate the interactions of team members. Still other managers prefer to delegate and let staff members handle specific problems and issues.
Feelings of security in an uncertain situation have a definite impact on the manager's willingness to release control over decision making to other people in an uncertain environment. What might be involved here is the manager's tolerance for ambiguity.
It is important to recognize that managers have different leadership styles, but it is also important to remember that style is not how leaders think they behave in a situation, but how others (most importantly, their followers) perceive their behavior. The importance of this concept is often difficult for leaders to understand. For example, if Jane's followers think that she is a firm, task-oriented leader, it will not matter that she thinks she is a democratic, relationship-oriented leader; her followers will behave according to how they perceive her. In this case, the followers will treat Jane as if she were a firm task-oriented leader. Thus, leaders have to learn how they are coming across to others. Yet, this kind of information is difficult to obtain. People are often reluctant to be honest on this subject, especially in a supervisor-employee relationship.
Followers' Styles and Expectations
The styles of followers are an important consideration for leaders in appraising their situation. In fact, as Fillmore Sanford indicated, there is some justification for regarding the followers "as the most crucial factor in any leadership event." Followers in any situation are vital, not only because individually they accept or reject the leader, but because as a group they actually determine whatever personal power that leader will have. If the follower decides not to follow, it really does not matter what the other elements in the situation are.
This is an important aspect of all levels of management. Victor H. Vroom uncovered evidence that the effectiveness of a leader is dependent to a great extent on the style of the individual workers. Saul Gellerman also stressed the importance of the workers:
Place a group with strong independence drives under supervisors who need to keep the group under their thumb, and the result is very likely to be trouble. Similarly, if you take a docile team who is accustomed to obedience and respect for their supervisors and place them under supervisors who try to make them manage their own work, they are likely to wonder uneasily whether the supervisors really know what they are doing. 
Tannenbaum and Schmidt argued that a leader can permit followers greater freedom if the following essential conditions exist:
Even though managers would prefer to change their followers' styles, they may find that they must adapt, at least temporarily, to the followers' current behavior. For example, a supervisor who wants followers to take more responsibility and to operate under general rather than close supervision cannot expect this kind of change to take place overnight. The supervisor's current behavior, at least to some extent, must be compatible with the current expectations of the group, with planned change taking place after a long-term period. We have seen numerous examples of the need for this kind of diagnosis in schools where humanistic teachers have tried to turn over significant responsibility to students without recognizing that many of these students expect teachers to tell them what to do. This rapid change in style often produces irresponsibility rather than more student initiative.
Hyler Bracey has suggested that leaders need to "manage from the HEART":
Managing from the HEART can promote increased honesty in supervisor-employee relationships, increasing job satisfaction through personal empowerment, and give your organization a tangible competitive edge.
 Leaders, especially leaders who are new in their position, should know the expectations that followers have about the way they should behave in certain situations. A predecessor's leader behavior style is still a powerful influence. If this style is different from the new leader's style, this difference may create an immediate problem. Leaders must either change their style to coincide with followers' expectations or change follower expectations. Because the style of leaders often has been developed over a long period of time, it can be difficult for them to make any drastic changes in the short run. It may, therefore, be more effective if leaders concentrate on changing the expectations of their followers. Supervisor's Style and Expectations Another element of the environment is the leadership style of one's supervisor. By supervisor, we mean the leader's leader. Just about everyone has a supervisor of one kind or another. Most managers give considerable attention to supervising followers, but some do not pay enough attention to being a follower themselves. Yet, meeting the supervisor's expectations is often an important factor affecting one's style, particularly if one's supervisor is located close by. If a supervisor is very task-oriented, for example, the supervisor might expect followers(s) to operate in the same manner. Relationship-oriented behavior might be evaluated as inappropriate, without even considering results. This rigid thinking has become evident when first-line supervisors are sent to training programs to improve their human relations skills. Upon returning to the company, they try to implement some of these new ideas. But their own supervisors, who have not accepted these concepts, become impatient with the first-line supervisor's newfound concern for people. "Joe, cut out all that talking with the workers and get the work done." With such reactions, it would not take this first-line supervisor long to revert to the previous style, and in the future, it will be much more difficult to implement any behavioral change. Associates' Styles and Expectations A leader's associates, or peers, are those individuals who have similar positions within the organization. For example, the associates of a vice president for production are the other vice presidents in the company; the associates of a teacher would be other teachers. Yet, not all associates are significant for leaders; only those they interact with regularly have an impact on their style and effectiveness. The style and expectations of one's associates are important when a leader has frequent interactions with them, such as a situation that involves trading and bargaining for resources. Organization's Styles and Expectations The style and expectations of an organization are determined by the history and tradition of the organization, as well as by the organizational goals and objectives that reflect the style and expectations of current top management. Over a period of time, an organization, much like an individual, becomes characterized by certain modes of behavior that are perceived as its style. The development of an organizational style, or corporate image, has been referred to as the process of institutionalization. In this process, the organization is infused with a system of values that reflects its history and the people who have played vital roles in its formation and growth. Thus, it is difficult to understand Ford Motor Company without knowing the impact that Henry Ford had on its formation. Some organizations, for example, hold to the notion that the desirable executive is one who is dynamic, imaginative, decisive, and persuasive. Other organizations put more emphasis on the importance of the executive's ability to work effectively with people---human relations skills. Members of the organization soon become conscious of the value system operating within the institution and guide their actions from many expectations derived from those values. The organizations expectations are most often expressed in forms of policies, operating procedures, and controls, as well as in informal customs and mores developed over time.\ Organizational Goals The goals of an organization usually consist of some combination of output and intervening variables. Output variables are those short-run goals that can easily be measured, such as net profits, annual earnings, and win-loss records. On the other hand, intervening variables consist of those long-run goals reflecting the internal condition of the organization that cannot easily be measured, such as its capacity for effective interaction, communication, and decision making.  Joseph Batton, an author of fourteen books on leadership and quality management, summarized the relationship of an organizations values and expectations. Organizational policies, procedures, processes, and programs must be individually rooted in the organization's philosophy, which is the basic repository of corporate vision and values, and which, in turn, pervades every part and person in the organization. It is important to note that in the absence of a coherent and cogent philosophy, mediocrity and a sense of drift abound.
*SOURCE: MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR: LEADING HUMAN RESOURCES, 8TH ED., 2001, PGS. 146-152*
end
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Measurement Methods by Charles Lamson There are two major measurement methods: counting and judging. While counting is preferre...
-
Product Life Cycles by Charles Lamson Marketers theorize that just as humans pass through stages in life from infancy to death,...
