The Psychology of Management - Assignment Example

The Psychology of Management Question: To be effective, managers need to draw upon knowledge taken from several disciplines: a. Why is it important that managers use knowledge taken from psychology? b. Comment on the problems that the managers may encounter when seeking to apply psychology to their role. Answer: Psychology, being the study of mind, is essential for the managers. It helps them in determining the outcome of delegation of work on the employees and understanding the effect of work on the mind of the employees. This is a significant consideration, as managers can draw inputs from behavioural sciences, in according directions to work and see that their instructions and work have expected effect on the employees. Unless the manager understands the effects of his management on the mind-sets of his subordinates, it becomes difficult for him to plan for future. Organisations are by far a congregation of individuals and the tasks they accomplish are resultant from teamwork. Humans, whether they pursue a task individually or in teams, carry their psyche to workplace too. If the leader exactly comprehends with the psychology of his team members, he can facilitate them work better (Gilbreth, 1921). Efficiency and quality of work are functions of a person’s mental make-up and a clear interpretation of principles of psychology and human attitudes are important in achieving these at work. When the manager carries enough knowledge of the principles of management as well as psychology to his work, it is advantageous in assessing the minds and thoughts of the employees and devising strategies to tackle them and direct their skills towards getting the work done effectively. Principles of management rest on the foundations of behavioural sciences and the study of human mind. Further, psychology transgresses and transpires through every step of management, be it employee safety, welfare, designing remuneration package, total rewards system, collective bargaining, employee retention, performance management etc. Training needs assessment, need for promotion, assessing the correct decision alternatives etc are better evaluated by managers familiar with psychology. The managers, especially those involved in functions related to performance appraisal, assessment centres, counselling etc find it imperative to be aware of psychology, which explains human behaviours, thoughts and ideas in detail (Schein, 1988). Managers being the initiators and agents of change, need to get a clue of how the employees would react to the intended changes, so that they are enough prepared to tackle such situations. Science of the mind aids in this regard. Psychology is also helpful in arbitration, conflict resolution and also in implementing reward and punishment systems, which would properly reinforce the good and bad behaviours of the employees respectively. Disciplinary actions should be formulated based on psychology, so that the correct problem of the individual is addressed and the behaviour rather the individual is punished. Psychology helps managers in understanding the unexpressed intentions and behaviour of employees through assessment of their body language, signs, gestures etc and exactly analyse their intentions. This also helps in understanding the future actions of the employees. An understanding of psychology definitely gives the manager a competitive edge, as this adds extra mileage to his profile in consideration towards career growth and development. It helps in understanding extreme behaviours or the mental disorders that the employees possess. It also throws light on the factors hampering the team from delivering high performance. Friction and communication gaps are inevitable components of any human association. Psychology guides the managers in clarifying the communication channels and dissolving the differences in opinion among employees. It also assists the managers in harnessing the channels to the advantage of the organisation. Managers take up the roles of being a facilitator, relationship- and rapport-builder among the team. So, he has to understand the mind-sets of members in order to play all the characters perfectly. Behavioural sciences are also applicable to routine managerial functions related to motivating the employees, kindling their enthusiasm towards work. Then, the leadership style of the managers needs to be a function of the psychology of the people to be managed. Problems associated with applying psychology in management Psychology itself sources its principles from various natural, biological and behavioural sciences, and thus applying them directly as a ready-made solution in organisational context is not always possible. All the principles of psychology do not apply to organisations, as psychology deals with individuals and organisations work with teams and groups as basic units. Teams behave differently from the individuals and their behaviour is much unpredictable than humans operating in segregation. Even individual behaviour may not subscribe to the set conduct prescribed by psychological theories. They may turn irrational, unpredictable under the burden of various factors including the situations pressures. Thus, psychology may not be applicable under all circumstances (MacDougall, 1922). While theories are drawn based on hypothetical situations or few real routine situations, all the conditions of real life, that one faces daily or situations that surface under some circumstances may not have a ready reference to theory, i.e., theories or models of psychology do not offer solutions to all situations. The theories are based on the ideas, assumptions and apprehensions of the scientists who have proposed them. The propounder might thus perceive the state of affairs in a lop-sided manner, rather than considering a balanced view. They might not have pondered on all the innumerable variables that influence one’s behaviour. So, mere knowledge of psychology does not suffice the need of managers in managing the employees. Individuals respond to situations, people and circumstances, these are again influenced by their knowledge, fads, limitations etc. No science can completely address all these variables that vary from one person to another. So, psychology can only equip the managers with the basic knowledge of human behaviour, which needs to be further tailored as per the needs of the situation. In some situations, acting as per the behavioural sciences may go against the organisational interests, as accomplishing the organisational objectives is the main task at hand for the managers, rather than dealing with the mind-sets of employees or teams. Thus, they are caught in a dilemma whether to follow the sciences or the organisational interests (Jones, Steffy & Bray, 1991). A manager may possess the necessary facts related to psychological theories, but he can only be as effective as he can put them in practice. If he fails in selection of the correct theory that suits the situation or if he does not implement it properly, the situation may turn against the manager himself and become detrimental to his future. Experience can only guarantee immunity from such mistakes. Thus, experience added to knowledge is an effective tool in handling situations psychologically. Further, taking the behavioural sciences view into consideration under all organisational situations and in various organisational functions is time and resource-consuming. Question: Change in business organisations is rapid and more or less continuous. Such changes have major implications for both the organisations themselves and the people that work in them. For what reasons may employees resist the change in workplace and how might the managers respond to various forms of resistance they experience? Support your answers by reference to recognised studies and models on managing change. Answer: Change is an inevitable component of evolution. Organisation is such an entity where evolution is rapid, as it has to respond to the external changes that occur in its environment as quickly as possible, in order to remain competitive and current in the markets. However, change especially that in organisation is prone to resistance from the employees. Sometimes, this friction may end up hampering growth and development in the organisation. Employees get into denial mode when they hear of the impending change, as they refuse to acknowledge the need for alteration of present state of affairs, during the preliminary phases. Unless this stage is effectively tackled, opposition arises in the immediate future during implementation phase and leads to decreased productivity. Resistance is defined as the intentional efforts put by the employees to prevent the occurance of change. It is imperative to understand the reasons behind resistance, in order to devise strategies to handle it (Lawson & Price, 2003). Resistance to change may be a consequence of the anxiety and frustration created in the employees regarding the unusual and unpredictable situations that may result from the change that is going to take place. Thus, express resistance is a defense mechanism to guard themselves from the change. Due to the lack of complete knowledge of future, the employees may foresee major losses in terms of their power, position, incentives, job security that the present status quo guarantees, i.e., before the actual change occurs. Since future is always uncertain, employees may find it scary to imagine the uncertainty along with the unknown consequences of change. The final situation may be imagined as a nightmare by the employees and they may resort to resistance mechanisms. Some employees may find the change to be a threat. They may feel cheated by the management, lose trust in their decisions and policies and may express such thoughts as resistance. The consequences of change may conflict with the personal interests of the employees and so, they may not be willing to change. The employees may comprehend the change to be a necessity from the organisational point of view and is not a necessity of employees, thus they may see vested interests of the management in undergoing change. They fail to appreciate the change as a complete organisational need. In the process of preparation and understanding the need for change, employees may find other available, feasible and easy options available for the management. They thus resist the course of action selected by the top management (Hellriegel and Slocum, 2007). Change may bring about dissolution of available powers with an employee or manager and thus, the loss of such authority may result in resistance to change. Change may also be viewed as a control mechanism by the management and the employees’ suffocation to such impending control may result in resistance. When the change not communicated properly or through proper channels or it is conveyed by people whom the employees do not trust, they do not completely agree with the intentions of change and resort to resistance measures. Overcoming Resistance to Change Handling all the resistance to change is essentially the task of management, which includes middle and lower level managers. Many scientists have provided valuable inputs in this regard, through their various models to defeat the resistance offered by the employees. Kurt Lewin’s force field analysis puts forth that driving and restraining forces act against each other to attain equilibrium during change process and suggests that managers should work towards reducing the latter, rather than pressurising or forcing the employees to change, thereby strengthening the driving forces. They need to clearly explain the need for change to their subordinates resisting change, make them part of the change process and stabilize the status quo once the required change is achieved (Daft and Marcic, 2008). Rosanbeth Kanter suggests another approach called ‘the change masters’. According to this, the organisations must be considered as an ‘integration’ of various components, rather than a collection of segments. This ideology supports innovation and change, because it emphasizes on creating pride among the employees on their contributions to the organisation and highlight the positive aspects such as rewards and recognition. Channels for interpersonal communication are to be left open and the employees must be informed of the change or innovation and allowed to offer their ideas before the actual decisions regarding change are finalised by the top management. The power bases within organisation, such as management committees must be easily accessible to the employees, so that backing to innovation rather than resistance is achieved. Kotter and Schlesinger proposed 5 strategies of overcoming resistance, based on the situation and reasons for resistance (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008). When lack of knowledge or data about the impending change is the reason for resistance, managers need to educate the employees on necessity for change and explain the resultant benefits. When the managers are unable to sketch out the strategies to change, they may involve the employees in designing as well as bringing about change. Such participation also boosts the morale of the latter. When the employees fear coping up with the challenges that may be put forth by new status quo, the managers can facilitate them to accept change by extending necessary guidance or training to equip them with the essential expertise and reinforce their confidence. When the employees perceive potential loss from change, the managers can offer rewards or payoffs for allowing the change to happen through negotiation. When managers hold power and there is an urgency to change, they may have to coerce the employees to accept change. Thus, the various strategies available in handling resistance stress on inclusive approach to change, where the staff form an essential part of the process. Coercion and other negative strategies are only tried as a last resort, when all the other contrivances fail. References Daft, R. and Marcic, D. 2008. Understanding Management. 7th ed. Ohio: Cengage Learning. p227-234. Gilbreth, L.M. 1921. The Psychology of Management. New York: MacMilan Company. p1-20. Hellriegel, D. and Slocum, J. 2007. Organizational Behavior. Ohio: Thomson South-Western. p458-465. Jones, J.; Steffy, B. and Bray, D. 1991. Applying Psychology in Business: The Handbook for Managers And Human Resource Professionals. New York: Lexington Books. p835-844. Kotter, J. and Schlesinger, L.. (2008). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review. 10 (4), p1-12. Lawson, E., and Price, C. 2003. The psychology of change management. McKinsey Quarterl., 2(4), p30-41. MacDougall, R. 1922. The general problems of psychology: Conceptions. New York: New York University Press. p125-160. Schein, E. 1988. Organizational Psychology. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p61-70. Read More