Individuals Ability to Trust Others - Essay Example

Critical Thinking Questions Q1) What role do you think training plays in an individuals ability to trust others? For instance, does the training of lawyers, accountants, law-enforcement personnel, and social workers take different approaches toward trusting others? Explain. An individual’s ability to trust others is something that is built up during his (or her) growing up years. The ability to trust (or not) is such a basic instinct, that in later life, training generally only reinforces existing beliefs. A complete transformation of one’s basic value systems can be brought about by training only rarely, if this is accompanied by life events that corroborate the new value system. Training for a profession subtly and overtly reinforces attitudes like trusting or not trusting. Lawyers, accountants or law-enforcement personnel are trained to detect/punish the law-breaker. So they tend to look only at the transgressions of law that people indulge in, and mistrust them for these. The social worker is trained to help and rehabilitate. Rehabilitation is done by building emotional bridges with a person, and this can be achieved only on the basis of trust. Therefore, social workers tend to trust more than those in the law-enforcing professions. People adhering to a certain value system tend to choose professions that mirror that value system. So you have a ‘policeman mentality’ person become a cop, whose mental attitudes are also reinforced by training as a cop. There are, of course, exceptions, as always, to this ‘rule’. Q2) "Its possible to be both a trusting boss and a politically astute leader. One requires openness and the other requires concealment." Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Explain. It is possible to be both politically astute and trusting. To be a trusting boss one needs to be open, but to be politically astute one need not necessarily conceal. Assuming that the purpose for being politically astute is the achievement of success, it is possible to be successful without concealing. As a boss, trust is built among one’s employees or followers if one establishes one’s credibility. If a boss shows that she does what she does, for the organization as a whole, and keeping in mind the welfare of her people, she will always have their backing, even when she is forced to make unpleasant decisions. Political astuteness leads to success as a leader, if one works for the common good and not just for self. One of the best examples of a combination of political astuteness and openness in a leader is Mahatma Gandhi. He was a very open person with high moral principles. He was politically canny too—he used the much-touted British adherence to the principle of fairness and justice and the British communication system to publicize his point of view. And finally, the British had no option, but to grant India independence in 1947. Q3) As a new employee in an organization, why might you want to acquire a mentor? Why might women and monitories have more difficulty in finding a mentor than would white males? A mentor is a philosopher-cum-guide who takes personal interest in an employee, and helps him integrate himself into the organization, and understand the nuances of its culture. As a new employee, I would like to acquire a mentor, as he helps me progress in my profession by guiding me on the acquisition of skills and qualifications that help in promotions and raises. A mentor, being senior, works as a bridge between the top management and me. Women and minorities may have greater difficulty in finding a mentor than White males, because there may not be enough persons to mentor them. Mentors (senior personnel) who are women or a minority may just not exist in an organization. And other senior personnel (non-minority male) may not want to mentor the new minority/women entrants, because of actual prejudice, or because these entrants are an unknown variable. It is also likely that the few senior personnel who are women or a minority, have reached where they have by down-playing their female-ness or other factors that differentiate them from the majority. So they may be unwilling to associate with ‘their own kind’ for fear of jeopardizing their current positions. Q4) Is there an ethical problem if leaders focus more on looking like a leader than actually being one? Discuss There certainly is an ethical problem if a leader focuses on looking like a leader, rather than actually being one. To be a good leader, one should work for the betterment of the organization and its personnel. One must do the right thing, even when people are not looking. Having said that, we must remember that since a leader does not operate in a vacuum, good communication and openness is of the essence in good leadership. Therefore, along with focusing on being a leader, he must also communicate (look) that fact. Therefore, a good leader does what a leader must do, and also gives the impression that he is a good leader. If he does not do what a leader should, but gives the studied impression that he does, he is guilty of perpetrating a fraud on his followers, and this is unethical. If he does what a leader should do, but is not able to communicate that fact to his team, he is not unethical. But this style of leadership may fail to motivate, and ultimately lead to a breakdown of the leadership, because of lack of acceptance from his followers. Q5) "Leaders make a real difference in an organizations performance." Build an argument in support of this statement. Then build an argument against this statement. Followers look to leaders to tell them what to do. A leader is like a person on a dais, addressing an audience of his followers. He has this ready audience, and his voice will be heard, rather than that of a heckler. He is at the center of his organization, vested with discretionary and decision making powers. He is also the ‘gate-keeper’—the point of contact for other organizations. With all these attributes, he acquires influence—his actions are emulated by employees, and his words carry weight. Therefore, what he does or says can make or unmake an organization. However, when an organization evolves, and employees are empowered, a leader may not matter so much. Power may become diffused and be concentrated in the hands of the followers. In a bureaucratic organization, decision making gets vested in processes rather than people. A leader could also be stopped by his followers, if he acts capriciously. He can become a figurehead, around which the rest rally, to carry out the will of the actual actors on the performance stage. The best examples for ‘non-leading’ leadership are the many titular heads of republics. For example, the Queen of England, today, hardly makes a political difference, playing only an ornamental role. Q6) Don’t teams create conflict? Isn’t conflict bad? Why then, would management support the concept of teams? Wherever there is more than one person, there would be differing thoughts and opinions, and where there are different thoughts and opinions there is likely to be conflict. But that doesn’t mean we ban people. Not having teams because they cause conflict is like banning marriages because they cause divorce. Conflict is inevitable, and what is needed is the mechanism to manage it. Besides, conflict isn’t bad. It’s just an indication that people have diverse opinions. A complete lack of conflict, in fact, could be an indication of a deeper malaise—like indifference on the part of team-members, or tyranny of the team leader. Diversity of ideas can creatively enrich an organization, if that diversity is tapped. When people work together, they create synergy, which can either be positive or negative. Positive synergy in a team creates results, which far exceed the sum of individual results were all the team members working individually. It is this positive synergy, which the management of an organization tries to harness, for which they create teams. Good teams also have self-governing mechanisms to see that everyone contributes. Such teams raise morale, and make the work-place happy. Beside, administration of teams is easier for management, than administration of individual isolated employees. Q7) How do you think member expectations might affect team performance? Expectations of members definitely affect team performance. Members have expectations of their role, their position and the quality and quantity of the work they have to do within the structure of the team. They have expectations about the kind of infrastructure they will be provided, the remuneration they will get, the kind of interactions they will have with team members, the role of the team leader, how much she should supervise them, how much she should help, and how much space and freedom she should give them. As a matter of fact, a team bristles with a web of expectations. Expectations of the team members of themselves, of each other, of the leader, and the leader’s expectations of herself, and of each team-member. Apart from this, there would be expectations of each person about the interaction and inter-relationships among other team members. All the expectations mentioned above, obviously, will not match. It is the extent to which team members and the leader are able to be flexible and prune and change expectations to accommodate one another, without sacrificing performance goals, that enhances team performance. This process of adjusting to one another is a continuing and dynamic one. Q8) Do you think there is such thing as a team player? What are the behaviors of such a person? There is certainly such a thing as a team player. A true team-player is one who acts such that the integrity of the team is not sacrificed for the sake of self. The best examples are the members of a well-knit family. Where there is commitment to the family (team) adjustments would be made to accommodate the interests of all, within the available resources. A process of constant adjustment takes place among all team-players to achieve this dynamic equilibrium. A team-player is interested in the welfare of all team-members (including self). He is communicative, and he is sensitive to the needs of others whether openly articulated or not. He has learnt to confront issues (not sweep them under the carpet) and resolve conflicts in a civilized manner. He knows how to share credit received for performance, with others, and is not destructively competitive. These attributes may be something not so easy to acquire in a culture that idealizes hard-driving, individualistic values. A team-player is one who has traveled from a position of independence to one of inter-dependence. A true team-player need not disappear into the background either. He realizes that the team needs his contribution too. And in turn, he can hold center-stage—his share of it, when warranted. Read More