How to Cope with the Problematic Situation - Essay Example

How to Cope with the Problematic Situation Executive Summary The case study analyzed in this paper illustrates several issues associated with leadership and management. Existence of an influential informal leader within the team puts the new supervisor in a difficult situation. On the one hand, his positional power provides him with every tool to effectively manage the team; on the other hand, lack of certain intangibles related to leader’s influence are likely to hinder his efforts to successfully cope with the problematic situation. The paper seeks to reveal the key factors that contribute to such situation. 1. Introduction The phenomenon of leadership has traditionally been associated with in-group dynamics of social interactions. The common feature of any social group or any size is that its members differ in the degree of their influence, and “… the person who exerts the most influence on the rest of the group thus affecting group beliefs and behavior is usually addressed as leader” (Hollander 1985, p. 14). However, while this definition of leadership highlights the essence of leadership, it is only one of the numerous of definitions that have been proposed in the literature: the second edition of The Handbook of Leadership by Bass lists more than 130 definitions of this phenomenon and 13 major approaches (Bass, 1990, p. 12). Availability of such versatile data significantly facilitates analysis of problems related to leadership because in many cases the existing approaches and definitions are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. The present report is an attempt to analyze a situation that provides valuable insights into the most essential aspects of leadership and is directly linked to effectiveness of managerial work. 2. Main Body 2.1 The Problem: Formal Manager vs. Informal Leader The story of Ted Willis who has been hired as the new supervisor suggests he is likely to face the classic type of leadership problem: the new leader vs. the old leader. One should not get misled by the fact that Ted is the new supervisor and the old supervisor has been fired. The so-called ‘workers of influence’ theory of leadership is particularly important to understand the distinction between managers and leaders. The key idea of this theory is that leadership may be exhibited by anyone in the organization in any type of position (Yukl 1989). According to this theory leaders may operate at different levels within the organization and within the same hierarchical level as their followers. Such perception of leadership conflicts the traditional theories which treat it as a set of attributes and behaviors exhibited by persons with legitimate power. Etzioni (1961) undertook the pioneering research effort to prove existence of leaders operating on the same hierarchical level with their followers. This type of leadership is labeled as ‘informal’ which means the leader does not possess official power over his followers, as opposed to formal leaders-managers that exert influence on subordinates by virtue of their higher hierarchical position. While the important role of informal leaders during organizational changes has been discussed in the literature, little is known about sources of their power and how traditional literature on leadership can be applied to them (Antonakis, Cianciolo, & Sternberg, 2004). Existence of such leaders demonstrates that sources of power for leaders and managers are not necessarily similar. In our case, this theory reasonably suggests that Ted’s position does not automatically make him the leader – the most influential person within the group. Furthermore, the group already has an established long-time informal leader: that troublemaker who has managed to keep from getting fired because he is the only employee who knows the inventory system. Another problem that is likely to affect Ted’s success as a new leader has to do with the style of management adopted by his predecessor. The essence of this problem is perfectly summarized by Linda, Ted’s manager in her characteristic of the old supervisor: “He had semi-retired on the job and let the employees do what they wanted. He was not concerned about accuracy in filling orders or maintaining the inventory” (Hitt, Black, & Porter 2005). This statement provides a very informative characteristic of the management style preferred by Ted’s predecessor. The style of management plays a highly essential role in whether the managers will be able to successfully perform at the position or not. There are four basic management styles described in the management literature: Directive Democrat: managers make decisions in participation with their subordinates, but at the subordinates are closely monitored and controlled. Directive Autocrat: mangers make decisions on their own and keep a close watch on the work and activities of their subordinates. Permissive Democrat: mangers ensure that the subordinates also participate in the decision making process and give latitude to the subordinates in performing their duties. Permissive Autocrat: mangers make decisions on their own without much involvement of the subordinates, but provide their subordinates with relative freedom in performing their work (Muczyk, 2004). Each of these styles has certain advantages and drawbacks, but it is not possible to draw an objective comparison of their effectiveness: in some organizations permissive democrats may be more successful than directive democrats, in other organizations directive or permissive autocrats may exhibit high effectiveness, and visa versa. Effectiveness of the management style directly depends on the type of organization and nature of work performed. The style of permissive democrats apparently adopted by Ted’s predecessor does not seem to be the best choice. On the one hand, managing professionals with highly specific knowledge such as doctors, architects, lawyers or IT specialists is a very difficult task. In Ted’s case there is at least one employee with unique knowledge of the inventory system. The style of permissive democrats may be the best solution to keep such employees motivated through their active involvement in the process of making decisions related to their very specific work. The involvement provides them with the sense of belongingness to work and they demonstrate more commitment in performing their duties (Maister, 1997). However, the style of permissive democrats has one essential limitation: active involvement of the subordinates in the process of decision making, coupled with lack of strict control often produces a deceptive impression that the manager adopts a laissez-faire attitude and simply does not perform his direct functions, namely controlling (Muczyk, 2004). For the sake of objectiveness, it is necessary to admit that the style of permissive democrat requires the ability to balance on the verge between managing and actual laissez-faire attitude. The core problem is that despite very specific skills and unique knowledge the person is a human being in the first turn, and human beings may sometimes mistakenly perceive active involvement in the process of decision making and seeming lack of control as the opportunity to act on their own. In order to avoid such undesirable and potentially dangerous situation the manager must find certain methods to motivate his subordinates perform effectively despite lack of traditional rigid control. Unfortunately, this task can be correctly fulfilled only by skilled managers with sufficient knowledge base about the peculiarities of their profession: Ted’s predecessor does not seem to belong to this category and his failure to effectively manage a specific type of employee has led to adoption of the actual laissez-faire attitude. 2.2. Situational Factors Apparently, Ted should design an effective strategy in order to resolve the problems left by his predecessor. As a new manager his first step should be to closely analyze the system of relationships established and maintained by the previous manager within the team. Despite the seeming clarity of Linda’s explanations, her perception of the situation Ted is supposed to deal with may be biased or incorrect. Therefore, direct analysis of the situation is necessary to avoid wrong solutions. Individual assessment of the employees seems to be one of the best options for Ted to perform analysis of his team. This may include personal interview and continuous on-job monitoring of the system of relationships in general and behavior of each employee in particular. A third party opinion may be very helpful too. After detailed investigation of the case the information should be carefully analyzed and weighed to avoid even the slightest possibility of mistake. A combination of these methods is likely to provide a new and more adequate angle of view on the roots of problems that exist within the team. After certain conclusions are made Ted is apparently supposed to determine the options available for his team to resolve the difficulties which result in poor discipline and absence of integrity (existence of at least two groups within the team has been mentioned by Linda). The list may include various types of mediation (group or individual), group conflict resolution strategies and others. The amount of strategies and approaches described in the literature to cope with the situation is sufficient, but the core problem is to correctly diagnose the problem: there are many effective solutions for virtually any kind of problematic situation. However, even if Ted’s analysis as well as his choice of corrective strategy is correct there still remains a slight possibility that the situation to improve. For example, the employee who acts as the informal leader within the team has psychological problems that prevent him from becoming an effective member of his team or the system of relationships within the team has become too deep-rooted and stable to correct it in relatively short term. In this case termination of employment may be the only alternative option available for Ted although such measure does look extreme considering the level of development of human resource management science. Yet, despite the increasing demand to treat human resources in as flexible way as possible, maintenance of favorable organizational environment and achievement of objectives still remain the key functions of managers and the primary goal of the whole management process. Thus, in case the analysis reveals that the employee described by Linda as the key disturbance is really the source of problems within the team, Ted’s failure to improve the in-group climate and performance will turn that employee a serious threat to the supervisor’s ability to succeed. 2.3 The Source of Influence: Leadership vs. Management After the choice of strategy is made, Ted will have to implement it. In order to avoid problems during this process that is likely to be rather painful for the team he must realize the sources and limitations of his influence on the team. Such understanding is especially important in Ted’s case which apparently involves an informal leader (the employee) and formal manager (Ted himself). In order to grasp the difference in the nature of their influence on the team one should pay attention to the difference between the processes of leadership and management. The variety of views on the distinction between leading and managing is almost the same as the number of theories that tend to explain the leadership and management phenomena. However, some of them deserve particular attention. For example, Kotter (1996) argues that leaders create vision and general strategies, while managers do more tactical planning. Leaders align group members onto the goals of the group and inspire them to persist in achieving these goals; managers divide the work into tasks and jobs and the people into departments and teams; they organize how the work will be done, and check on whether and how well it is being done. Managers are better at conserving the processes of the organization and leaders come in handy when the organization needs to face change. It follows that managers are sometimes good leaders and sometimes not, leaders are sometimes good managers and sometimes not. Leaders are perceived to be specialists in motivation and overall assessment and strategy, while managers are seen as better at organization and control. In similar vein, Warren Bennis claims that “…the difference between managers and leaders is fundamental. The manager administers, the leader innovates. The manager maintains, the leader develops. The manager relies on systems, the leader relies on people. The manager counts on control, the leader counts on trust. The manager does things right, the leader does the right thing” (Bennis 1994, p.173). John Kotter, a professor at Harvard Business School and probably the most known authority in leadership and management studies, is the author of many articles and several books which explain the nature of distinctions between the two processes. Kotter’s key idea is that while leadership involves the processes of developing vision and forward-thinking strategies, innovations, change, and empowering followers, management deals with the effective functioning of an organizational system. This includes planning, supervising, budgeting, organizing, controlling, staffing, etc. (Kotter 1996). In Ted’s situation the new supervisor acts as a pure manager while one of his employees has the power of leader within the team even despite the fact that he operates on the same hierarchical level as his followers. The only source of power available for Ted is his positional power while the source of his ‘opponent’s’ power is more diverse because, as Bennis puts it, he ‘relies on people’. Such balance of powers puts Ted in disadvantageous position when he must search for additional sources of power. The most promising option is using the same source of power as the informal leader does, namely follower within the team. Ted’s use of two sources of power – hierarchical position and leader’s influence – is an absolutely normal scenario since leading and managing are not mutually exclusive processes: a good leader can be an effective manager as well, while a good manager can be an effective leader to his or her subordinates (Kotter, 1996). The same view is advocated by Thomas who argues, “…increasingly, the people who are the most effective are those who essentially are both managers and leaders” (Blagg 2001, p.33). In a more recent study, Bartlett, another well-known authority in this field, notes, “Good management is about achieving results through others and I think that it always encompassed leadership” (Doh 2003, p.65). 3. Conclusion Management and leadership should definitely be viewed as complementary processes though a number of differences between these two processes have been described in the literature. The case study analyzed in this paper provides an illustration of the potential problems related to a situation when positional power of manager does not coincide with the influence of leader. Concentration of both sources of power in the hands of one person seems to be the most effective option available in the situation being analyzed: modern scholarly literature apparently leans toward more consolidated view on leadership and management because effective leadership involves some practices that are associated with management and visa versa. References Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T. & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) 2004, The nature of leadership, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Bass, B. M. 1990, Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications, New York: The Free Press. Bennis, W. 1994, On Becoming a Leader, 2nd Edition, Addison-Wesley Pub Co. Blagg, D. & Young, S. (2001). What Makes a Good Leader. Harvard Business School Bulletin, 2, 33. Doh, J. P. 2003, ‘Can Leadership Be Taught? Perspectives from Management Educators’, Academy of Management Learning & Education Vol.2, No.1, pp.54-67. Etzioni, A. 1961, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations on Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates, Free Press, New York. Hitt, M.A., Black, J.S. & Porter, L.W. 2005, Management, International edition, Prentice Hall, Brisbane. Hollander, E. P. 1985, ‘Leadership and power’, in G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp. 485 – 537. Maister, D. H. 1997, Managing the Professional Service Firm, Free Press. Muczyk, J. P. 2004, ‘A Systems Approach to Organizational Effectiveness: The Alignment of Critical Organizational Dimensions with Selected Business/Competitive Strategies’ [Electronic version], Journal of Comparative International Management, Vol. 7, No. 1 [available online http://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/JCIM/bin/get.cgi?directory=vol7_1/&filename=muczyk.htm] Yukl, G.A. 1989, ‘Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research’, Journal of Management, Vol. 15, pp.251-289. Read More