Management of Organizational Behaviour: The Relationship Between Leaders and Followers - Essay Example

Management of Organizational Behaviour: The Relationship Between Leaders and Followers Introduction The relationship between leaders and followers in organisations forms part of the culture of an organisation. This essay discusses the ways in which this relationship – this culture of trust – is established through the perception of the relationship by followers. The alternative argument, that the behaviour of leaders is the determinant of trust, is also considered in opposition to this main argument. The issue of trust is also discussed, unpacking the related issues which form trust, such as loyalty, obedience, and motivation. Leaders often occupy a more exposed position than followers, they have increased pressures and accountability. Often, due to their elevated status or financial rewards, they may be isolated in the workplace. The perception of the leader can also be influenced by all management decisions in a form of ‘cabinet responsibility’, so the perception of a leader may be partly formed by the behaviours of other leaders, board decisions, or legislation requirements. The longevity and primacy of perception Given the range of behaviours leaders demonstrate throughout their career, perception is argued to show a more consistent view, a lens through which behaviours are interpreted. Goebel and Cashen noticed this effect in children describing their teachers based on simple physical traits, referring to the broader “primacy effect” generated by the initial perception of a follower, after which they are “less likely to attend to new and contradictory evidence [behaviours]” (1979. p.651). This may be additionally informed in a management context, for example, through media representations. Based on this perception, the same leader behaviour could be understood in different ways by different followers – one which builds trust, and one which does not. For example, if a leader imposed a ban on overtime this could be understood in a trust-building way by a follower who perceives the leader as interested in employee wellbeing and family values (“he is looking after us”), or in a trust-reducing way by a follower who perceives the leader as financially orientated (“she is always trying to cut corners”). Leader behaviour and the range of responses in follower perception It is difficult to anticipate that a leader always behaves uniformly. Leaders always have more responsibilities compared to the followers. The success or failure of a project is the responsibility of the leader, regardless of whether the failings may be due to a subordinate. The perception of the leader, on which their behaviours are based, may be that they are being made to ‘carry the can’ for failings of employees, whereas those same employees may perceive weakness in the leader for not realising the vision given to them (Wood and Winston, 2005). If we analyse the execution of a project in the initial, middle and final stages, we can evaluate the leader-follower relationships more closely. At the beginning of a project, the leader needs to guide the followers for the successful execution of the project. The leader should clear the doubts of the followers and should explain all the aspects of the project at the beginning. Moreover, the leader must give the expected outcomes and the time frames of the project to the followers. The initial period of a project is a shorter period and the roles of the leader and the follower may have some differences at this stage. The leader may behave in a more authoritative manner during this period. The middle stage of a project is a stage in which bulk of the actual work has been performed. At this stage, the leaders take suggestions from the followers to fine tune the project and to execute the project more efficiently. Leaders may step out of authoritative behaviours and offer trust to followers, delegating responsibility. Follower perceptions at this stage could vary between resentment (“he gets paid more and we do all the real work”), appreciation (“he clearly trusts us to get on with this in our own way”), subversion (“we can relax now that he’s not watching over us all the time”), or a myriad of other responses to the same leader behaviour. During the final stages of the project again the roles of the leader and the follower might differ. It is usually the leader who decides when a project has reached a satisfactory conclusion and this behaviour shifts the focus of power back to the leader. In addition to potential disorientation caused by frequent shifts in power dynamics (“Is she our superior or our equal?”), this is the moment of evaluation and accountability, and again the same leader action, such as evaluating the work produced, can be perceived by different followers in different ways. For example, they may be respectful (“I know she can help us improve this, I’m glad that she takes the time to look at our work so carefully”), threatened (“why does she have to pick everything apart, doesn’t she trust I’ve done the job right?”) or apprehensive (“I hope she doesn’t find the mistake”). In many ways, these examples illustrate that it is not just the perception of the follower that influences trust but also their behaviour in response to leader’s behaviour. To base perceptions on the behaviour of a leader in any one stage would give a misleading impression – it may be possible over a month to find multiple examples of a leader behaving in a confrontational, respectful, caring, dismissive, supportive, etc. manner. The importance of building consistent perceptions Leader behaviour can influence the followers a lot in building their trust upon the behaviours of the leader. At the same time judging a leader based on a single incident alone might be premature as the leader may behave differently at different stages of a project as discussed above. Kotter (1995) stresses the importance of managers acting as role models, building a vision of their company and their persona that inspires trust. By forming this as their initial image (as discussed with regards to the primacy effect), it is hoped that managers model the behaviours consistent with that persona and so support it as a valid perception rather than a veneer of rhetoric. Both of these authors link management failure to inconsistency, that intelligent employees will judge on behaviours as well as rhetoric and the fair-weather friend of a leader will eventually be exposed and discredited. In a reinforcing circle of desired behaviours, trust can be established through consistency. Kumar and Rao (1996) relate this in terms of trust to value based management based on philosophical ideals where there is an “urgent need” to encourage “moral behaviour among managers” (p.415). Even if employees know that a leader cares little for employee wellbeing and is more concerned with the bottom line, they can be reassured that behaviour is consistent and predictable. Even though they might feel it is unjust behaviour, it is at least fair. The importance of modelling the desired behaviour is also highlighted by Darcy and Kleiner (1993) when discussing optimized attitudes, arguing that employee ratings of trust were related to the amount of trust demonstrated by leaders. This is a clear case of leaders getting back what they give, that even though the leader behaviour of constantly checking on the work of a subordinate is inherently untrustworthy (and could even be judged positively as concern, or being involved with the ‘grass roots’ of a company), the common perception of the behaviour is that it reflects someone who is untrustworthy, perhaps somebody who is constantly looking for weaknesses to exploit in a competitive rather than supportive manner (again, regardless of whether this is the intention of the leader or not). Conclusions The trust between the followers and the leaders is essential for the smooth functioning of an organisation. However, the trust is not formed so much by what leaders do but what the perceived reasons for these actions are. This highlights the need for open-ness and honesty rather than hoping that employees will guess the correct interpretation of an action. Leaders who are honest about their limitations and consistent and open in their approach can expect a positive reaction, and trust, from employees even if the displayed behaviour itself does not intrinsically develop trust. In conclusion, when deciding on behaviours to display, leaders should act in accordance with their vision for the leadership of the company and the behaviour they wish to see in, and have reciprocated from, employees. This may require some honest feedback for leaders to really understand what the perception of them is, and some leaders may find that reputation repair is the first step in a laborious process of re-establishing trust but one which is essential if they do not want future behaviours to be perceived through the lens of the past. References Darcy, T. & Kleiner, B. (1993). Leadership for change in a turbulent environment. Logistics Information Management. Vol. 6, No. 2. Pp.5-9. Goebel, B. & Cashen, V. (1979). Age, sex, and attractiveness as factors in student ratings of teachers: A developmental study. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 71, No. 5. Pp.646-653. Kotter, J. (1995). Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review. March-April. Pp. 59-67. Kumar, N. & Rao, U. (1996). Guidelines for value based management in Kautilya’s Arthashastra. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 15, No. 4. Pp.415-423 Wood, J. & Winston, B. (2005). Toward a new understanding of leader accountability: defining a critical construct. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Vol. 11, No. 3. Pp.84-94. Read More