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
|
No comments:
Post a Comment