Why Cranky Manager Is More Effective Manager - Essay Example

A cranky manager (i.e. a manager willing to shout at non-performing employees) is a more effective manager’       Introduction: 1 Executive Summary. 2 Role of Communication. 2 Skills of Good managers. 3 Role of Positive Criticism.. 4 Commodification of Employee. 5 Motivation: Strategic Use of Punishment 6 Conclusion. 8 Reference: 9                     Executive Summary   The following discussion would veer off three essential points, first the strategic nature of communication that is required from every manager given the competitive nature of the modern corporate professional world, second the fact that much of the shouting managers is in fact a manifestation of frustration and aggressive behavior that has long term manifestation in shouting matches at the work place-these also essentially reduce the worker to the place of commodity to be used an abused as opposed to a colleague to be respected and valued. The problem here therefore would manifest in the way of building a team and the perpetration of desirable teamwork. Finally the argument would focus on the psychological grounding where theory is concerned in terms of motivation through rewards and punishment. Here it would be proved that both have desirable effects only in case when they are used in moderation and in strategic manner.   Introduction:   A simple Google search on Effectiveness on Bosses that shout at work yields the first result as yahoo Wiki Q/A blog where someone has put up a query based on the fact that their boss not just screams at them all day but puts them down as well. The thing that strikes on straight off the bat in this case is the link that there is inherent in the concept of Boss shouting and boss putting him down. This could very well be the starting point for a discussion on whether or not a manager who shouts is a more effective corporate leader vis-à-vis a manager that chooses other means of communicating.   Role of Communication    Communication is one of the most debated upon and argued skills with respect to the functions of a modern manager. There have been numerous instances where deals have fallen through and teams have splintered because of the inadequacies that characterized the communication abilities of a manager, or the person that in common modern parlance is referred to as the corporate leader (Levin, 2003). In order to be the most effective, a successful manager has to be a good communicator who can condition and lead their team in the right direction, giving and taking up slack when needed..   It is also important for a leader to understand the fact that most good teams need feedback to develop (Levin, 2003). A tem member too scared of the manager would never provide needed feedback therefore rendering the management as ineffective. An employee that feels threatened all the time, is scared of being screamed at would automatically be limited in terms of productivity and creative output. It has been said that an employee that knows how to stand up for oneself at work possesses an essential skill. Whether an employee is being overworked, treated unfairly or micromanaged, the way to successfully manage the situation is to remain professional. Arguments need to be laid out in a clear manner and not transcend into shouting matches which are ego clashes rather than rational discussions (Levin, 2003).   Skills of Good managers   Good managers aren't intimidated by temporary setbacks and have the ability to ease any tensions the team may be feeling to keep them operating efficiently. When one hears about workplace aggression one thinks of the familiar cranky boss who shouts and screams at the lightest of pretexts in uncontrollable bursts of rage (Smith, 1996). This manifests in terms of character assassination and could be manifestation of a behavior that characterizes those prone to anger, impulsive behavior with poor emotional control and low tolerance of frustration. Large organizations, which have mature and well run IT departments may well have formal project offices with established project planning standards, dedicated project office staff and probably automated plan-quality checking systems (Smith, 1996). Effective examples would be seeking orphan tasks, missing dependencies and measuring other metrics to provide an overall 'plan quality' assessment. Smaller organizations, such as solutions houses, may lack this level of sophistication, but will almost certainly need detailed project plans. an effective sense of humor is an important part of a leader’s job. In the workplace, humor helps relieve tension and boredom, defuses hostility and helps build relationships with group members. The manager who makes the occasional witty remark is likely to be perceived as being approachable and friendly effective leaders demonstrate good emotional intelligence and the ability to manage themselves and their relationships effectively-this would broadly encompass traits related to leadership effectiveness including self confidence empathy and passion for the task.   One has to remember the fact that one o the primary desirable qualities that need be inherent in a manager is the ability to inspire trust from his/team members. This one could term as flexibility. It is required for a manager especially when dealing with new team members who may need specific, firm direction to get started. The project manager should be able to adopt various styles of leadership (Authoritative, Collaborative etc) with various people. It is often essential that a manager has the ability to ensure that team members and subordinates are comfortable sharing their doubts and insecurities along with the ability to admit their mistakes in front of the manager. This would then automatically then mean that a manager that scares rather than inspires people would never be the kind of leader that would get trust necessary for the success of a team.   Role of Positive Criticism  It is in this context that one has to understand the power wielded by positive criticism. People who constantly tap on to the power of positive criticism are strategic in the senses tat they actively tend to take responsibility for the manner in which they communicate, seeing themselves as directive force with the goal being to get their recipient to take their criticism productively (Kilperin, 2005). They recognize that the communication pro0cess itse3lf is influential and that the more active they become in it, the more they could influence the manner in which the recipient responds. A manager with this approach as an innate awareness factor would give himself the opportunity to hear criticism and decide whether or not work being done is being done in the best possible manner or not. The point that one has to remember in this context is that when criticizing, information being put across has to be directed in a manner that maximizes the receptivity by the one at the receiving end of the criticism. This means essentially that criticism should be constructive and not destructive.   One has to understand the facts that many times in a given field of work, situations develop that tend to require spontaneous and instant action (Drucker, 1945).     Commodification of Employee  It has been argued that in many organizations employees have value only in terms of the work that they produce and the are looked upon as factors of production. Although completely Marxist in this terms of its outlook, this particular perfective is important because of the fact that if people are not treated well, and they are screamed at, or even treated in a shoddy manner, there is a possibility that they would either start feeling isolated or group against the leader (Drucker, 1942). Both these trends would then mean that employees would act based on thoughts that are irrational, and demonic forces that are outside of the scope of their individual control.   A point that is interesting in this context is that much of the modern society has stopped being a simple "community of individuals bound together by a common purpose" and has transformed into a "chaotic hubbub of purposeless isolated monads, where the function of work and a profession is not just to given people a vocation but also to provide individuals with "status and function" as income and only the hierarchical corporation could provide satisfying work (Drucker, 1945). People were frustrated when managers valued labor only as a commodity or when workers just sought money from their jobs. In these cases, the firm and the worker valued each other only as a means to an end. The primacy of economic performance, however, should not obscure that the business corporation was "as much a social organization, a community and society" as it was "an economic organ." In the "new society," which was an employee society, the firm had a responsibility to realize social values and fulfill individual needs.    Over the years, management theorists such as Peter Drucker have found the legitimacy of managerial power in terms of “the rule of right over might” as opposed to "submission to force.” The point therefore is that it is the duty of the manager to ensure that he has the ability to grant the right to command, thus creating the duty of compliance-which in turn then empowers the one issuing the command. Real legitimacy, however, would transcend passive submission to managerial authority. It would inspire the ruled to active commitment to organizational goals, and instill the "self-discipline" that would produce peak performance. They would voluntarily subordinate personal needs to corporate needs. Then the firm could become a harmonious community.   Motivation: Strategic Use of Punishment A point to be noted here would be with respect to the application of motivation theory. Modern day working life and its related pressures have meant that there are many that just do not have time to address their personal goals or to make time for them outside the scope of work. The reasons many believe could be traced to company practices like long working hours, take-home assignments, paltry vacations, travel demands, and the occasional weekend e-mails from bosses (Harvard Business School Publication, 1992). This has meant that most employees are having to push back against relentless encroachments on their personal time and are seeking ways to balance the two sides of their lives. This does however one cannot accomplish single-handedly.   The theory is to be understood in the context of positive and negative stimulus, a positive stimulus will reinforce behavior while a negative stimulus would force one to detest from it. To document the negative effects of reward and positive effects of punishment ion motivation, one has to just consider an achievement failure. The general arguments is  that if failure is reacted to with anger, criticism or some other form of negative feedback and punishment then it is indicative of the fact that the individual is responsible and would be held accountable in the long run.   It would therefore signify that punishment and other types of negative feedback for no attainment of a goal communicate to recipients of this feedback that they “can“ but need to try harder. In general, productivity depends on 3 things: In general, productivity depends on 3 things: resources utilized employee's ability to perform, and employee's willingness to work or motivation to perform (Li, 2001). Although motivation is not the sole determinant of productivity, it is a determinant of crucial importance. Without motivation, resources and ability will be of little avail, or may even result in undesirable behavior. This therefore then automatically qualifies that a boss who punishes by shouting at an employee and generally being in a bad mood at all times would work towards the de-motivation of employees and the perpetration of a simple attitude wherein the basic idea is no matter how hard one tries it would be the same crankiness that would greet the fort. The point therefore remains that punishment has to be used in moderation-a shouting cranky boss never does know how to measure down.   By simple motivation theory, there are two stimuli that affect 6the regulation of people’s behavior. It is clear that behavior that is rewarded would be [perpetrated again given the fact that it would have support from the management and behavior that is punished would be banished for good (Behling, 1975). Shouting from the boss would be regarded as punishment and would then abet stopping behavior that is undesirable. One has to only look around at the large contemporary corporate honchos to recognize the fact that it is strategic man management and not screaming bosses that attain large a scale success in the boardrooms. It must also be understood that much of the modern corporate communication takes [place in the context of the human-technology interaction wherein e-mails and online chats play a big role in redefining communication within an organization (Lee and Pantelli, 2010). Despite this, face-to-face (FTF) communication is a common form of interaction wherein those involved attend in person to complete joint tasks, and it is perceived as the best communication medium (Prasad and Akhilesh, 2002). Conclusion It has been stated in psychological parlance that shouting forms part of a hidden Passive aggressive behavior that could be marked for a purposeful and veiled manner of showing anger. It has also been stated that in the context of workplace settings, that are characterized by the presence of individuals that spend the big parts of their waking hours and corporate hierarchies inhibit direct expression of feelings, the passive aggressive manager has the ability to ruin the entire vibe of an office and destroy everything in the range of sabotaging deadlines to department morale and even long term organizational productivity. It is therefore important that an organization cultivates the ability to identify passive aggressive behavior prior to them negatively impacting organization productivity. Reference: Behling, O., (1975). ‘Alternatives to Expectancy Theories of Work Motivation’. Journal of Decision Sciences. 6(3). Pp449-461 Drucker, P. E., (1942, 1955). The Future of Industrial Man: A Conservative Approach. New York. pp. 78-85 DuBrin, A. J., (2008). Essentials of Management. CengageBrain. p345 Harvard Business School Publication, 1992, Time management: increase your personal productivity and effectiveness, pub, Harvard Business Press, p108  Kilperin, E., (2005). ‘A positive reply to constructive criticism’. Action for change in music education. 4(1). Pp37-42 Lee, J. Y., and Pantelli, N., (2010). ‘Business strategic conflict in computer-mediated communication’. European Journal of Communication Management. Vol.19. pp196-208 Levin, R., (2003). ‘The dentist as a leader’.  Journal of Dentist Association. 134(10). Pp1391-1392 Li, L., (2001). ‘Human Motivation in the Work Organization’. New asia College Academic Journal. Vol. 16. pp253-263 Lustig, R. J., (1982). ‘Corporate Liberalism: The Origins of Modern American Political Theory, 1890-1920’. Berkeley, 1982. pp. 255-56 Prasad, K., and Akhilesh, K., (2002). ‘Global virtual teams: what impacts their design and performance’. Team Performance Management.  8(5/6). pp102–112 Smith, F., (1996). ‘Leadership Qualities: Ten ways of identifying a good leader’.Leadership Journal. 17(4). pp 30 Waring, S., (1992). ‘The Corporatist Critique of Scientific Management’. In D. Nelson (Eds),Ohio State University Press, Columbus. Pp205-236 Read More