Different Managerial Techniques to Improve Engineering Managerial Environment - Essay Example

? Analysis of different managerial techniques to improve an engineering managerial environment BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Analysis of different managerial techniques to improve an engineering managerial environment Introduction The reflective log illustrates a scenario in which lack of effective communications between two military professionals led to a breakdown in project efficiency and the ability to achieve project deadlines. Informal communications, rather than establishing a workable plan of action, setting a timetable for project completion, and establishment of a clear set of tasks, led to frustration, conflict and a lack of trust between the two professionals. The project involved a changeover of artillery equipment from one unit to another, with a series of inspections that must occur before transferring equipment from a neighbouring artillery unit (1 RHA) to our unit (19RA). My professional counterpart, ASM Smith, agreed that our equipment SMEs would liaise with one another to ensure that all systems were in proper working order before making the equipment transfer. This type of inspection is common practice. However, lack of proper planning and the development of a workable operational strategy for the project ultimately led to conflict, uncertainty and replication of roles that should have been coordinated more efficiently to avoid duplicitous job roles. This essay examines a variety of different managerial techniques that could have improved the scenario illustrated by the reflective log so as to improve the managerial environment. Drawing on management theory and reflective learning theory, the essay provides a foundation for a more efficient and productive project management system whilst also challenging the concept of reflective learning. Key learning points that occurred as an outcome of improper and inefficient coordination of resources and labour are also identified and applied to various theories and practices to improve such future negotiations. Managerial techniques The scenario identified in the reflective log required a participative management system in order to coordinate resources and produce more effective knowledge exchange. Interaction with others within the organisational hierarchy, rather than working in isolation, is critical in order to engage in knowledge production and create solutions to problems (Stover 2004). Both of the ranking professionals involved in the scenario believed that tasks associated with the project would be best handled utilising our own inspection and job coordination strategies. The informality of our original discussions about the project led to a breakdown of knowledge transfer that would have made the situation more efficient and scheduled according to a set timeline for completion. The bureaucratic and highly centralised structure of the military served as a catalyst for attitudes that involved self-protectionism, concern over reputation, and a highly political environment which complicated effective communications and coordination of resources and talent. In very political environments with this type of vertical structure, lack of transparency, lack of open communications, and self-protectionism tend to alienate other members of the organisation. A phenomenon referred to as a lack of psychological safety is created in this environment, leading to hazy communications systems and where members of the organisation become afraid to offer solutions and speak up (Terrell 1989). This is what occurred in the scenario, which ultimately led to frustration and a lack of motivation to be more forthcoming about establishing a more formal project management system. The political dynamics of our organisation also led to untrusting relationships whilst ASM Smith was concerned about protecting the reputation and senior-level perceived competency about following procedures and generally his role as an efficient manager and leader. Furthermore, since ASM Smith and myself had little professional experience working co-dependently, there was not the foundation of trust from a professional standpoint, even though we had socialised in earlier years. Starnes, Truhon and McCarthy (2010) iterate very strongly that trust is built over time and involves a series of reciprocal acts in a professional context. For trust to be developed, both parties must be actively involved in relationship development initiation and maintenance with each party illustrating genuine respect for one another and working collaboratively to solve the problems that impact both parties. In the scenario identified in the reflection log, rather than both parties being concerned about their own individual needs (which was what occurred), there should have been a more cooperative environment whereby both individuals worked dependently to establish a more mutually-beneficial project plan. Knowledge sharing, therefore, should have served as the foundation for effective managerial activity that involved heavier emphasis on mutual consultation. “Encouragement of knowledge sharing in team environments, facilitated by management, allows the organisation to capture knowledge and share this learning amongst team members more effectively” (MacNeil 2003, p.298). Neither ASM Smith or myself, during the period where conflict was enduring about the methods by which the project was facilitated, were concerned about knowledge sharing which is a cultural dynamic of this highly bureaucratic military environment. The people under the managerial charge of ASM Smith were growing frustrated that roles associated with inspection were being duplicated by members of 19RA (our unit) and began asking ASM Smith questions as to why these activities were being allowed to continue. If there had been more focus on following models of knowledge production and knowledge transfer with a team methodology, there would likely have been more personal emphasis on establishing a solid communications system that would have had more profound influence on the attitudes and behaviours of ASM Smith. Instead, during the initial period of conflict and frustration, I sought consultation with his superior which, ultimately, drove down trust in our professional relationship. Van Maanen (1991) views reflection as a mental activity whereby the individual removes themselves deliberately from a situation or event in order to consider them with more objectivity. Whilst I attempted to perform this segregation to consider events with a more considerate lens, most of this was driven by frustration and the diminishing trust in our professional relationship that was occurring as a result of improper communications strategy development. I did not, at the time, consider that the mentalities and professional experiences of both leaders were quite different and driven by years of experience in a highly centralised military environment. In this military organisation, pride is often a barrier to working cooperatively and is a legitimate phenomenon of military management and experience working with hierarchical systems. I did not understand, until utilising more effective reflective practice, that my own pride was influencing the ability to work cohesively with a different Unit leader and this was eroding the ability to establish a team methodology for better project coordination. Hence, I began to consider the importance of establishing a reciprocal relationship that would better facilitate cooperation and communications. Prior to attending a meeting with the Quarter Master, who was ASM Smith’s immediate managerial authority, I discussed with ASM Smith our rich social history playing rugby in order to establish a socio-psychological connection that would build trust in our relationship. This was also performed as a means of illustrating to our superiors attending a meeting about the project that we could settle our differences and establish a cooperative and engaging working relationship. What this accomplished was a series of short-term wins, which is a stage in the process of eliciting change (Kotter 1996). Kotter (1996) again emphasises that building a guiding coalition prevents resistance to change and empowers those in the organisation to adopt a similar vision. Our visual illustration of trust and social engagement was potent and showed our superiors that we could act professionally in order to identify potential solutions that were plaguing efficiency with this rather simplistic process of equipment inspection and transfer. It not only established the necessary reciprocal relationship for trust development between ASM Smith and myself, but satisfied our inherent desire for self-protectionism and reputation in the eyes of our superiors, creating a win-win scenario for both parties. Grieves (2010) indicates that change must be negotiated in order to gain commitment to a change activity. However, in military organisations, the culture is accustomed to having a strict and rigid hierarchy of authority and control which serves as a barrier for creating cooperative work teams. However, before this type of negotiation can occur, specific needs must be diagnosed by all parties (Grieves 2010). This is where the conflict began as ASM Smith was not accustomed to having to cooperate with peers in this type of fashion. Whilst I felt that there needed to be some urgency established, ASM Smith felt that he should be empowering his own Unit to establish efficient and broad-based action in the change project. ASM Smith trusted in the competencies of his own Unit and felt that their needs were paramount to the needs of my unit, 19RA. Farrell and Knight (2003) support this type of attitude suggesting that trust is actually an embodiment of the impact of rules and regulations where sanctions serve as influence for members of the organisation to behave in a trustworthy fashion which ultimately builds trust in the bureaucratic organisational structure. ASM Smith shared this belief, especially having experience being an authoritarian with many structured rules for compliance, that trust was built into the rules that drove Unit activity and performance. Therefore, in the eyes of ASM Smith, trust was not something requiring mutual cooperation and reciprocal acts, but was simply a construct of the centralised structure and rules which demanded compliance to such concepts as honesty and integrity. When I found myself frustrated and unable to communicate effectively, ASM Smith likely thought I was being irrational and attempting to create a socio-psychological influence that is not often received well in structured hierarchies with rigid control systems. Therefore, it should be recognised that in the situation where ASM Smith was not utilising reflective practice to objectively review the situation, it became my responsibility to be the more thoughtful and contemplative individual to improve trust in our relationship and open effective lines of communication. Branch and Paranjape (2002) refer to reflective thinking as the growth of the individual in moral terms, emotional terms, and cognitive terms. It was not until I distanced myself from the scenario and began to view it not only from my needs, but from the needs of others that I began to realise the distinct differences in attitude and experiences between myself and ASM Smith. I was hoping that I could impose my own reflective capabilities on my peer who had little experience in this type of reflective practice, leading to increased personal frustration and anger over his lack of reflection and cooperation. Instead of being objective and recognising the distinct differences in psychological programming with both parties, I instead sought a third party mediator to assist in developing a more efficient and mutual project plan that essentially bankrupted any further attempt on behalf of ASM Smith to develop a more reflective model of cooperation. This greatly ruined trust in our professional relationship which ultimately led to inefficient project management. Ford, Ford & D’Amelio (2008) indicate that when change occurs in the organisation, managers are often the subject of irrational and unreasonable resistance factors by those impacted by the change. I had not considered until utilising reflective models that ASM Smith was greatly impacted psychologically by his need to protect his Unit’s reputation and remain devoted to what he considered to be acceptable project protocol. Hence, he was returning rather irrational resistances to what I was proposing should occur, thereby creating an environment of opposition, challenge and general defiance, which was evident with raised voices and a lack of consensus during all of our individual meetings. If I had been more meditative and referred to critical management and human resources theory, I would have realised that this resistance to my proposed method of performing the project was a product of psychological adjustment that had been built in this structured hierarchy for many years. I could have come up with more effective communications solutions and showed more empathy for his Unit’s needs which would have laid the foundation for trust that was clearly lacking in our initial confrontations. According to Kotter (2001) inspiration and motivation work more effectively in energizing individuals in an organisation through an effort to satisfy basic human needs. Utilising the concepts in reflective practice, I could have realised that belonging within the military organisation was highly important to ASM Smith and developed strategies to enhance our relationship rather than being critical and forceful. Reflection allows an individual to learn new information, such as creating a new belief or value or the alteration of an existing emotional state (LaBoskey 1993). I was too headstrong and not utilising reflection appropriately to realise that ASM Smith was strongly driven by motivations for continuing his reputation and social belonging in the organisation. I could, therefore, have used concepts associated with soft human resources whereby strategies are utilised that speak to the hearts and minds of others in the organisation (Armstrong 2007). This strategy approaches organisational members as though they are valued assets and emphasises high trust establishment through involvement and more effective communications (Armstrong 2003). Though I recognised immediately that ASM Smith was becoming more insecure, I failed to understand what was serving as the driver for this insecurity. Therefore, my communications approach with more aggressive style was not providing the psychological fulfilment necessary for ASM Smith to become more responsive and cooperative. Instead, he was starting to withdraw feeling that I had challenged his experience and his authority. This is why reflective practice is so important to establishing cooperative relationships and gaining trust between similarly-ranked managers in the organisation. Reflective learning allows the individual to critically examine their environment and build a much deeper understanding of what is observed or experienced (Park and Kastanis 2009). It would have allowed me to more effectively evaluate the catalysts for ASM Smith’s change resistance and moderate defiance, thereby being able to utilise more effective and productive strategies that provided greater perceptions of social belonging and illustrated respect for his authority and position as a Unit leader. It was only upon reflective activity that I realised these dimensions were strongly contributing to the developing conflict and I could have utilised strategies that would have built mutual admiration and esteem that likely would have facilitated a more productive and efficient project system. Both ASM Smith and myself were attempting to gain control over the inspection and changeover processes and set our own, unique performance standards which were strongly in conflict with one another. As illustrated by the reflective log, this conflict allowed both of us to argue in front of subordinates, thereby further complicating the situation and adding a sense of unprofessionalism which impacted project performance. Neither ASM Smith or myself were utilising empathetic strategies and were concerned about fulfilling our own Unit needs. Smith’s values were incongruent with my own which led to diminished, mutual esteem and admiration for one another and this translated into unprofessional behaviours. Through reflection, which is a valuable tool for changing personal attitudes, I began to realise the stark personality-based differences between ASM Smith and myself and could have worked toward creating an environment where disagreements could be transformed into consensus through sympathy, understanding, and general reverence for Smith’s position. Even though Smith was not equipped with the reflective practitioner experience that would have made this scenario more manageable and less frustrating, I was metacognitively aware of my ability to be more considerate and benevolent and not allowed my own pride to create conflict. This would, of course, have required a more mature and self-sacrificing attitude, however I genuinely believe that this would have built the foundation of trust that would have made the project achieve greater productivity and efficiency. Hales (1993) describes the phenomenon where managers in bureaucratic organisations attempt to gain control over others through the accumulation of various power resources. This is defined as having something that the other person lacks. I was not very responsible nor reflective when attempting to draw power support from the QM in order to coerce ASM Smith to be more cooperative and open to change practices. I, myself, was using a politically-minded strategy rather than focusing on building cooperative environments that would have facilitated a more mutual set of solutions to satisfy the needs of both Units and individuals. It was through reflective learning that I realised my management philosophy was aligned with past experiences in bureaucracy and I was attempting to gain power over ASM Smith rather than seeking two-way solutions and shared decision-making. Conclusion As illustrated, there are many managerial strategies that are more effective in creating two-way communications, building trust, motivating cooperation, and generally being more efficient in dependent project scenarios. It is through reflective practice that one realises where their own deficiencies lie and how to better address the complex needs and values of peer managers in order to gain positive project outcomes. Without reflective practice and strategy, I would likely have not been able to rebuild lost trust between myself and ASM Smith which could have further caused conflict and long-lasting lack of esteem between us. By engaging Smith more socially and appealing to his own needs, I found trust redeveloped and the project was able to be completed without substantial reputation damage for either of us. This is in support of reflective practice and, through this scenario, I have learned the significance of reflective models of learning that will greatly improve future negotiations and communications. Reflective practice is crucial to understanding how to better cooperate within the organisation and establish mutually-beneficial strategies and practices that create efficiencies and productivity. Even though the bureaucratic hierarchy of control and authority that drives this military organisation serves to complicate the process of working dependently, it can be overcome to build more accommodating and supportive working relationships. Reflective practice establishes the foundation for critical self-reflection and allows the individual utilising these strategies to be more objective and empathetic toward others. The end result is more professionalism, trust development, and joint strategy formation that creates high-efficiency and positive collaboration. References Armstrong, M. (2007). Handbook of strategic human resource management, 5th edn. London: Kogan Page. Armstrong, M. (2003). A handbook of human resource management practice, 9th edn. London: Kogan Page. Branch, W.T. and Paranjape, A. (2002). Feedback and reflection: teaching methods for clinical settings, Academic Medicine, 77(12), pp.1185-1188. Farrell, H. and Knight, J. (2003). Trust, institutions and institutional change: industrial districts and the social capital hypothesis, Politics & Society, 31(4), pp.537-565. Ford, J., Ford, L. and D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: the rest of the story, Academy of Management Review, 33(2), pp.362-377. Grieves, J. (2010). Organisational change: themes and issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hales, C.P. (1993). Management through organisations: the management process, forms of organisation and the work of managers. London: Routledge. Kotter, J.P. (2001). Breakthrough leadership, Harvard Business Review. Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. LaBoskey, V. (1993). A conceptual framework for reflection in preservice teacher education, in J. Calderhead and P. Gates (eds.), Conceptualising reflection in teacher development. London: Falmer Press. MacNeil, C.M. (2003). Line managers: facilitators of knowledge sharing in teams, Employee Relations, 25(3), pp.294-307. Park, J.Y. and Kastanis, L.S. (2009). Reflective learning through social network sites in design education, International Journal of Learning, 16(8), pp.11-22. Starnes, B.J., Truhon, S.A. and McCarthy, V. (2010). A primer on organisational trust, ASQ Human Development and Leadership. [online] Available at: http://rube.asq.org/hdl/2010/06/a-primer-on-organizational-trust.pdf (accessed 20 November 2013). Stover, M. (2004). Making tacit knowledge explicit, Reference Services Review, 32(2), pp.164-173. Terrell, R. (1989). The elusive menace of office politics, Training, 26(5), pp.48-53. Van Maanen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching. New York: State of New York Press. Read More