Effectiveness of Managers - Employees Relationship - Essay Example

Running Head: EFFECTIVENESS OF MANAGERS - EMPLOYEES RELATIONSHIP Effectiveness of Managers - Employees Relationship of the of the Institution] Executive Summary Objective interdependence and authority may influence the kinds of try to impose that leaders make, and it may also concern the achievement of these influence efforts. One hundred forty-three European employees designated the extent to which they treasured the resources of their manager and their use of command and joint influence attempts. The results recommend that managers with helpful goals and authority relied on mutual influence, influenced well, and added to employee effort and pledge. These results carry recent theories that flourishing managers authorize their employees; also, the results are reliable with the possibility perspective in that the achievement of leader-influence approaches depends on the association among manager and employee. Table of Content Effectiveness of Managers - Employees Relationship 1. Introduction Leaders are anticipated to influence their employees to be vigorous and skillful in the quest of organizational objectives. Leadership researchers have focused on identifying the strategies that managers can use to persuade, convince, and control subordinates successfully. Although research in leadership influence has important implications, there has been a lack of progress in the development of consistent knowledge linking influence strategies with employee compliance and effective work (Davis & Luthans, 1994, 237). A less recognized fact is that the nature of the manager-employee relationship can affect the success of influence attempts. This study was an examination of how the cooperative or competitive relationship between managers and employees affects the kind of influence used and its effectiveness. 1.1 Interdependence and Influence The findings of recent studies suggest that the attitudes of employees toward their manager affect his or her influence attempts (Graen & Schiemann, 1997, 210). How employees believe their goals are related to their manager may affect their receptiveness to influence. According to Deutsch (2000, Press), influence and interaction more generally can be examined in terms of perceived goal interdependence. In cooperation, people believe their goals are positively linked so that as one moves toward goal attainment, others move toward reaching their goals; they can be successful together. In competition, people believe that their goals are negatively related so that ones success interferes with others. With independent goals, people consider their interests unrelated so that ones goal attainment neither helps nor hinders others goal attainment. In past hypotheses, goal interdependence was thought to affect trust and openness. In cooperation, people expect mutual assistance because it is in each others self-interest to give it. Employees are open to their managers influence because they believe that he or she wants them to succeed so that they all can achieve their goals. Employees who believe that their goals compete with those of their manager are closed to being influenced: They fear that their manager wants to succeed at their expense. Independent goals are thought to create indifference rather than trust or suspicion (Deutsch, 2003, Press). Considerable research supports that cooperation, compared with competition or independence, creates open communication and attraction and that these dynamics in turn lead to effective work (Tjosvold, 1999, Press, 2000, 49). On the basis of this research, we hypothesized that managers who have developed cooperative goals, in comparison with competitive or independent goals, effectively influence their employees. The strategies that managers use to influence employees have long been thought to be a critical aspect of power and leadership. Interdependence may also affect the kind of influence on which leaders depend. A persistent problem in the study of influence is a typology of strategies (Schriesheim & Hinkin, 2000, 246; Griffith , 2000, Yukl & Falbe, 2000, 132). Leaders can influence subordinates through threats, promises, suggestions, rewards, and setting aspirations, and they can convey warmth or coldness as they use these strategies (Tjosvold, 1999, Press). Kipnis (1996, Press) argued that influence attempts can be usefully categorized into (a) those that direct and try to control others and (b) those that are collaborative and the influenced subordinates believe that they have some choice in responding to the influence. Directive and collaborative influence attempts have been found experimentally to have different consequences (Tjosvold, 2000, 59). This distinction was used in our present study. Recent experiments provide some support for the view that interdependence affects both the type and the success of leaders influence attempts. In cooperation, superiors gave assistance when it was requested by subordinates (Tjosvold, 1999, Press). Superiors who were in competition with their employees relied on coercion to try to force them to comply, whereas those who were in cooperation with their employees used collaborative methods to influence them (Tjosvold, 2000, 60). On the basis of this research, we also hypothesized that managers with goals requiring cooperative rather than competitive or independent strategies rely on collaborative rather than directive influence methods. 1.2 Power and Influence Power is typically defined as the capacity to make others do what they would not otherwise do or the ability to overcome resistance (Dahl, 1997, 201; Weber, 1947). However, these definitions implicitly assume that the person with power and the person subject to it have incompatible objectives; Weber explicitly restricted power to competition. As suggested earlier, people in cooperation do not resist influence because they trust that others want them to succeed. The assumption that power is used only in competition is likely to bias theorization and make it more difficult to document the positive face of power (McClelland & Boyatzis, 1992, 737). Power can be defined independently of competition as the capacity to affect outcomes, or, equivalently, as the control over valued resources. Although they have not used this definition, organizational theorists have discussed valued resources as the bases of power (French & Raven, 1999, Press; Fryer , 2004; Rahim, 1999, 545). Powerful leaders can be expected to be effective influencers. In addition, power has been thought to affect the choice of influence attempt (Cobb, 2000, 152). However, research has not clarified whether powerful leaders rely more on directive or on collaborative influence. Kanter (1999, 67) proposed that more powerful managers are more helpful and more supportive of their subordinates than less powerful managers are. They have the confidence as well as the ability to aid their subordinates and influence them collaboratively. On the basis of a series of studies, however, Kipnis (1996, Press) concluded that superiors who are very powerful are frequently tempted to use their power coercively. This directive influence induces powerful leaders to conclude that they can control their subordinates and devalue them. In this way, Kipnis argued, power corrupts and undermines the powerful managers attitudes toward subordinates. We hypothesized, therefore, that powerful managers are effective influencers. However, the available evidence does not allow us to predict whether powerful managers rely on directive or collaborative influence. 2. Methodology 2.1 Subjects We contacted an agency that distributes and maintains heavy equipment for the state of Washington and the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. We asked 50 superiors of work groups to participate in our study; 47 (94%) agreed to participate. Also, of the 165 subordinates, 143 (87%) agreed to participate in the study by completing a confidential questionnaire. This sample included a broad range in age, experience, education, and technical specialization. Most of the groups were from the head office such as accounts receivable, administration, data processing, technical training, personnel management, and benefits management but groups in local branch offices such as management and parts, as well as sales, parts, and administration of major product lines also participated. 2.2 Questionnaire In the first part of the questionnaire, subordinates used a 5-point, Likert-type behavior frequency scale ranging from never (1) to always (5) to indicate their perception of how often their immediate boss exhibited specific attitudes and behaviors (see Appendix 1). The items were taken from an earlier study and were developed from the theory of cooperation (Tjosvold, 1999, Press). We used these items to determine both how goals were linked and the behaviors found to parallel them. Items measured perceived goal interdependence, distribution of rewards, and the social interaction derived from the interdependence. These items were refined through feedback and have demonstrated acceptable reliability, independence of items, and construct validity (Tjosvold et al., 2000, 62). The Cronbach alpha coefficients were .96 for cooperation, .91 for competition, and .74 for independence. In the second part of the questionnaire, superiors power was measured; respondents indicated the extent to which they valued various resources of their supervisors (see Appendix 2). The items were refined through feedback and analysis. The leader power scale had a reliability of .81. As a measure of their own power, respondents indicated the perceived extent to which they believed their supervisor valued their resources. There were 10 items similar to those used to measure leader power, with a reliability of .92. On 5-point, Likert-type scales ranging from never (1) to always (5), respondents indicated the frequency with which their leader used directive and collaborative influence. Cronbach alpha coefficients for the directive and collaborative influence scales were .75 and .79, respectively. Using the same rating scale, subordinates indicated the frequency of effective superior influence. This scale had a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .68. Subjects responded to nine items using 7-point scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) to indicate the effects of their supervisor on their work performance and commitment. This effective supervision scale had a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .93. 3. Results Our results (see Table 1) support the hypotheses linking interdependence with influence effectiveness. Managers who were described as cooperative were thought to influence their employees effectively, r = .34, p < .01. In addition, cooperative managers were also thought to contribute generally to the effectiveness of the employees, r = .70, p < .01. Competitive and independent managers were considered ineffective in influencing employees and did not help them perform successfully; however, the correlation between independence and effective influence was not large, r = .23, p < .01. Interdependence was also related to the type of influence. Cooperative managers relied on collaborative influence, r = .60, p < .01, but there was no significant correlation between cooperation and directive influence. We found that competitive and independent managers relied to some extent on directive influence strategies, r = .27, p < .01 and avoided collaborative ways to influence, r = -.31, p < .01. Power was related to type of influence and its success. We found that powerful managers relied on collaborative strategies, r = .51, p < .01, and relied somewhat on directive influence strategies, r = .21, p < .01; they also tended to be effective influencers, r = .27, p < .01, and contributed substantially to the performance of the employees, r = .98, p < .01. Regression analyses were completed to determine the most predictive variables and the extent to which they predict directive, collaborative, and effective influence. Competition, leader power, and employee power were retained, and they accounted for 22% of the variance of directive influence, F = 12.64, p < .01. Cooperation and leader power were retained, and they accounted for 37% of the variance on collaborative influence, F = 41.60, p < .01. Competition and employee power were retained, and they accounted for 30% of the variance on effective influence, F = 21.57, p < .01. 4. Discussion Our results indicate that previous experimental findings of the effects of interdependence on influence generalize to actual organizational leaders. Cooperative leaders relied on collaborative influence; they appeared to conclude that, as their employees are open to influence, collaborative influence is appropriate and effective. They influenced employees effectively and contributed to employee performance. These leaders may have concluded that directive influence was unnecessary because their subordinates were open to being influenced. Competition and independence, on the other hand, predicted the use of directive influence; competitive and independent superiors, not expecting their subordinates to comply freely, tried to pressure them. However, they were not effective influencers, and they did not have a constructive impact on employee work and commitment. Our results suggest that leader power induces both directive and collaborative influence. Consistent with the research of Kipnis (1996, Press), managers with greater power were found to rely more on directive influence attempts than managers with less power did. However, consistent with Kanters ideas (1999, 69), a superiors power was found to be strongly related to the use of collaboration. The additional finding that employees who were powerful also had collaborative managers may help to reconcile partially the Kipnis and Kanter positions. Kipnis argued that large differences in power between leader and employees resulted in directive influence and devaluation, whereas Kanters argument focused on the absolute power of leaders. On the bases of the results of this study and previous theorizing, we suggest that collaborative influence develops from mutual power. When leaders and employees are both powerful, leaders use collaborative influence. Directive and collaborative influence attempts are typically considered mutually exclusive; leaders rely on one or another. Experiments that compare them reinforce this thinking. However, our results suggest that they are positively related. Leaders rely on both types of influence. The operations and sample used in this study limit its results. The study relied on the perceptions of superiors as measured in questionnaires. These perceptions may be influenced by the employees implicit theory of leadership and common method variance (Lord, 1995, Press). However, recent evidence indicates that people often perceive their social environment accurately (Funder & Dobroth, 1997, 412) and that common method variance may not be as much of an artifact as commonly assumed (Spector, 1997, 439). In addition, perceptions are theoretically important; we hypothesized that effectiveness and influence are related to superiors and subordinates perceptions of how their goals are linked and of how much each values the others power resources. Another limitation in our study was the reliance on correlational data; however, previous studies have provided experimental support for our major findings. In addition, a recent study using interviews found that goals that require cooperative strategies contributed to effective interaction between managers and their employees (Tjosvold, 1999, Press). If successfully replicated, our results have potentially important practical implications. Managers have been urged to empower their employees, for powerful, successful managers do not take power from employees but energize them with power (McClelland, 1992, 739). These results emphasize that, when both leaders and employees are powerful, leaders relay on collaborative influence and are effective. In addition, this and other studies suggest that developing a strongly cooperative context is critical to the development of mutual power and employee empowerment (Harris, 2005). The interpersonal variables interdependence and power were more potent antecedents of effective influence than the type of influence was. Cooperation, superior power, and subordinate power were all significantly related to effective influence, and all accounted for a considerable amount of variance on the measure of effective influence (Bennet, 1997). Competition and independence were strongly and negatively correlated with effective influence. On the other hand, directive influence was not significantly related to effective influence or supervision. These results emphasize that relationship variables must be considered in understanding influence and may have more impact than influence strategies have. The prior relationship between the leader and subordinate appears to affect the success of influence, whether it is directive or collaborative. These results are consistent with the contingency perspective that response to a leaders influence attempts depends on the context: Goal interdependence and power in the leader-employee relationship contribute to the impact of leadership influence. References Bennet, R. (1997) Management London: Pitman Publishing. Third edition Cobb, A. T. (2000). Informal influence in the formal organization: Perceived sources of power among work unit peers, Academy of Management, 23, 155-161. Dahl, R. P. (1997). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2, 201-218. Davis, T. R., & Luthans, F. (1984). Defining and researching leadership as a behavioral construct: An idiopathic approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 237-252. Deutsch, M. (2000). Fifty years of conflict. In L. Festinger (Ed.), Retrospections on social psychology (pp. 46-77). New York: Oxford University Press. Deutsch, M. (2003). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. French, J. R. P. Jr., & Raven, B. (1999). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Fryer, B. Egbu, C. Ellis, R. and Gorse, C. (2004) The Practice of Construction Management. People and Business Performance Blackwell Fourth Edition Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. M. (1997). Differences between traits: Properties associated with intergroup agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409-418. Graen, G., & Schiemann, W. (1997). Leader-member agreement: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 206-212. Griffith, A. Stevenson, P. and Watson, P. (2000) Management Systems for Construction Harlow: Longman. Harris, F. and McCaffer, R. (2005) Modern Construction Management Blackwell Fifth Edition. Kanter, R. M. (1999). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 65-75. Kipnis, D. (1996). The powerholders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lord, R. G. (199). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 87-128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. McClelland, D. C., & Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). Leadership motive pattern and long-term success in management. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 737-743. Rahim, M. A. (1999). Relationships of leader power to compliance and satisfaction with supervision: Evidence from a national sample of managers. Journal of Management, 15, 545-556. Schriesheim, C. A., & Hinkin, T. R. (2000). Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical and empirical analysis and refinement of Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 246-257. Spector, P. E. (1997). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 438-443. Tjosvold, D. (1990). Power in cooperative and competitive organizational contexts. Journal of Social Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Tjosvold, D. (2000). Interdependence and power between managers and employees: A study of the leader relationship. Journal of Management, 15, 49-64. Yukl, G., & Falbe, C. M. (2000). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 132-140. Appendices Appendix 1 Goal Interdependence Cooperation My boss: passes on important information to me. seems pleased when I succeed. shows as much concern for what I want to accomplish as for what he/she wants to accomplish. helps me find ways to achieve my objectives. gives high priority to the things I want to accomplish. helps me grow and develop on the job. takes pride in my accomplishments. shares his/her ideas and resources with me. structures things so that his/her goals and my goals can be achieved. is interested in the things I want to accomplish. tries to help me get ahead in the organization. helps me do a good job. Competition My boss: gives high priority to the things he/she wants to accomplish and low priority to things I want to accomplish. seems threatened when I am highly effective. likes to show that he/she knows more than I do. seems to be threatened when I learn new skills and knowledge. seems to get in the way of my growth and development. withholds important information from me. likes to demonstrate his/her superiority. shows much more concern for what he/she wants to accomplish than for what I want to accomplish. restricts my attempts for improvements; he/she holds me back. is disturbed by my accomplishments. structures things in ways that favor his/her goals rather than mine. Independence My boss: is uninterested in the flow of information. doesnt know what I want to accomplish. works best when he/she works alone rather than with me. and I work separately. prefers to work alone rather than with me. is unconcerned about whether I get ahead in the organization. likes to get his/her rewards through his/her own individual work. is uninterested in the things I want to accomplish. is most concerned about what he/she accomplishes when working by him/herself. Appendix 2 Leader Power 1. I need information from my boss to do my work well. 2. I require official approval from my boss to move ahead. 3. My boss can influence performance evaluations and promotions that I want. 4. I value the personal support and friendship of my boss. 5. My boss can influence bonuses and salary increases that I want. 6. I need the knowledge of my boss to work effectively. 7. My boss can help me think about issues effectively. 8. My boss gives me the autonomy I need to do my work well. 9. By talking with my boss I am able to solve problems. 10. I learn a lot from working together with my boss. Directive Influence My boss: demands that I do as I am told. criticizes my poor work. tells me what to do and how to do it. gives me detailed instructions on how things should be done. is quick to point out and correct my mistakes. checks regularly to see that my work is done right. checks my work. Collaborative Influence My boss: and I jointly decide on what needs to be done and how to do it. provides guidelines about how things should be done and then leaves the details for me to work out. helps me recognize and correct my mistakes. and I jointly decide on when my boss will check on certain aspects of my work. lets me know what quality of work is needed and asks me to see that my work is done fight. comments on my work, be it good or bad. seems interested in the quality of my work. Effective Leader Influence 1. I resist being influenced by my boss. 2. When my boss gives me an order, I try to do as he/she wants. 3. I resent it when my boss asks me to do things I do not want to do. 4. When my boss asks me politely to do something, I try hard to do as asked. Effective Supervision 1. The way that I relate to my boss: inspires me to better job performance. reduces my desire to work hard on the job. makes me want to stay in my job. makes me think seriously about quitting or asking for a transfer. 2. My boss deserves a pay raise for the good job he/she is doing. 3. My boss deserves a promotion for the good job he/she is doing. 4. I have a high degree of trust in my bosss job competence. 5. I have a high degree of trust in my bosss motives and intentions. 6. I have a high degree of trust in my bosss interpersonal competence. 7. All things considered, I am highly pleased with the way that my boss and | work together. Appendix 3 TABLE 1 Correlations Among Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Variable 1. Cooperation -- 2. Competition -.51(**) -- 3. Independence -.58(**) .44(**) -- 4. Employee power .46(**) -.14(*) -.43(**) -- 5. Leader power .50(**) -.26(**) -.37(**) .36(**) -- 6. Directive influence -.05 .27(**) .14(*) .01 .21(**) -- 7. Collaborative influence .60(**) -.31(**) -.42(**) .43(**) .51(**) .22(*) -- 8. Effective influence .34(**) -.41(**) -.23(**) .09 .27(**) -.06 .10 -- 9. Effective supervision .70(**) -.50(**) -.50(**) .27(**) .98(**) -.08 .46(**) .45(**) -- (*) p < .05. (**) p < .01. Read More