An Overview of Organizational Leadership and Management

David S. Walonick, Ph.D.

Power

The quest for power has dominated human history. One of the earliest works on the management of power was written by Niccolo Machiavelli, a political advisor to nobles during the early sixteenth century. In The Prince, Machiavelli laid out a set of principles that would help the nobles maintain their leadership and control over the populous. A few of the most important of Machiavelli’s assertions are:

· It is better to be a conservative rather than liberal spender.

· It is better to be feared than loved. One can be feared without being hated.

· The end justifies the means.

· Cunningness is preferable to integrity.

· Take opportunities to give dramatic rewards or punishments so they will be talked about.

· Offer help to parties that are less powerful than you.

· Do not take common cause with parties more powerful than you.

· Use counselors that are truthful, but who have a narrow focus.

· Acting impetuously is preferable to cautiously.

· Seek a reputation of severity instead of softness.

· Use care not to offend the powerful or those subservient to you.

Modern theories of management reject the underlying ethics of Machiavelli’s power principles. Power is maintained through fear, which is unacceptable because it involves the repression of the human spirit.

Yukl (1989) defines power “as an agent’s potential influence over the attitudes and behavior of one or more designated target persons” (p. 14). Yukl proposes a taxonomy to classify power in organizations according to its derivation–position, personal, or political.

Position power is frequently called “legitimate power” (French and Raven, 1959). It is derived from a person’s position in an organization and includes control over rewards, punishments, information, resources, rule-making, work assignments, and decision making. Subordinates comply with this form of power out of obedience to authority, loyalty to the organization, or respect for the hierarchical structure. In some way, they recognize the legitimacy of the authority. Membership in an organization can be viewed as a form of a “social contract”, where members agree to the rules in return for the benefits of membership (March and Simon, 1959).

Power derived from personal attributes comes from the interactions of a person with other members of the organization. One form of this power, dubbed “expert power” (French and Raven, 1959), comes from an individual’s expertise in solving problems or performing a particular task. Another form of personal power is derived from loyalties and friendships developed over a long period of time. French and Raven (1959) referred to this as “referent power”. Personal charisma is a form of referent power. People tend to be attracted to and identify with charismatic leaders. In a review of eighteen studies, Podsakoff and Schriesheim (1985) concluded that effective leadership is strongly associated with the use of referent power.

Political power involves deliberate attempts by groups or indiviudals to increase or maintain their existing level of power. It encompases actions to gain control or influence over decision making processes. Coalitions and alliances are often formed as part of the political process, and they often involve deliberate attempts to undermine the opposition to the coalition. For example, “co-optation” is a political strategy where an influential individual from the opposition might be allowed to participate in a decision making process, knowing that this will increase their commitment to the decision (Yukl, 1989).

French and Raven’s (1959) power taxonomy is similar to Yukl’s (1989) except that position power is subdivided into reward and coercive powers. In addition, French and Raven stressed that the different types of power are likely to be related in complex ways.

Social exchange theory (Hollander, 1958, 1979; Jacobs, 1970) attempts to explain how power is won and lost by understanding the interaction processes between individuals. The theory looks at how leaders emerge in groups as a result of their interactions with other members of the group. The weakness of the theory is that it only attempts to understand interactions after the fact, and it does not offer any guidelines for leaders on the acquisition or use of power.

Motivation

Psychologist Abraham Maslow (1954) focused on motivating forces in individuals, and established a “hierarchy of needs.” According to Maslow, individuals would move to satisfy their needs in a hierarchical manner. Once a need was satisfied, it no longer would have the ability to motivate. At the bottom of the hierarchy, were physiological needs, such as food, shelter, and sexual gratification. These were followed by safety needs (protection from environmental dangers), social needs (love and belonging), and esteem (self-respect and the approval of others). The highest need was self-fulfillment, which involved deriving a sense of value and satisfaction from one’s work. While people generally filled these needs in order, Maslow recognized that the hierarchy was flexible within individuals, and that priorities could vary. Maslow did not include money in his schema because of the ambiguity in the meaning of money. For some people, money is a way to achieve the basic requirements of food and shelter. Others view money as a measure to satisfy their need for self-fulfillment.

Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) interviewed 200 engineers and accountants to explore what factors were motivating. They concluded that many factors that were thought to be motivating, such as pay and managerial style, were not motivating at all. Herzberg (1966) proposed that job statisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposite ends of a continuum, but rather represent two distinct variables. Intrinsic motivational factors (called “satisfiers”) included achievement, recognition, and responsibility. Extrinsic factors (called “hygiene factors”) consisted of things like pay, status, job security, and management style. Herzberg theorized that a lack of satisfiers would not cause dissatisfaction. The presence of hygiene factors would not cause satisfaction, but their absence would cause dissatisfaction. While Hertzberg’s two-factor theory generated considerable research, “repeated factor analytic studies of job attitudes have failed to demonstrate the existence of two independent factors corresponding to motivators and hygienes” (Campbell, 1970, p. 381).

During the early 1960’s, managers began to recognize that money, working conditions, and punishment were not effective long-term motivators. Douglas McGregor (1960) theorized that the emotional climate of work was an important motivating factor. He postulated two opposing theories. Theory X views people as lazy and unmotivated. It argues that people naturally avoid responsibility, and therefore, need to be controlled and directed. Threats of punishment and deprivation are compelling motivators. Theory Y, on the other hand, states that work itself is a gratifying motivator. People will use self-control to achieve a goal, and they will accept (and even welcome) responsibility. Evidence exists to support both theories, although most modern managers favor theory Y (Drucker, 1974).

McGregor was dissatisfied with the either/or interpretation of his theories, and in 1967 proposed Theory Z as a way for management to embrace the paradox by simultaneously accepting both points of view. McGregor’s Theory Z was never accepted or popularized. As Pascale (1990) points out, when Ouchi’s book Theory Z was published in 1981, very few people even remembered that McGregor had previously used the term.

Expectancy theory attempts to understand motivation as a process where workers rationally decide how much effort to devote to a job at any given time (Georgopolous, Mahoney, and Jones, 1957; Porter and Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964). According to the theory, workers weigh the desireable outcomes (e.g., higher pay, promotion, recognition, etc.) against the undesireable outcomes (e.g., reprimand, layofff, stress, etc.). The probability of a perceived outcome is referred to as an expectancy, and the desirability of the outcome is its valence. A workers motivation is affected by the combination of expectancies and valences for each of the outcomes.

The reinforcement theory of motivation (also called contingency theory) is an outgrowth of the behaviorist school of psychology. Skinner is the most well-know proponent of the theory. The basic principles of the theory are: 1) reinforced behavior tends to be repeated, 2) reward is more effective than punishment, 3) feedback is necessary for improvement 4) rewards should be given without delay, and 5) rewards should be given for successive approximations of the desired behavior (Schneier, 1974).

Collins and Porras (1989) believe that motivation is the result of people doing a job that they think is worthwhile. They assert that motivation is not something that needs to be cultivated directly. Instead, it is a natural outcome of workers’ who believe in the mission, vision, and purpose of an organization. The “purpose” of an organization is a set of broad, enduring, inspirational, and fundamental reasons for the existence of the organization. The purpose provides a clear sense of direction by stating what members of the organization want to contribute to the world. The “mission” is a clearly defined and achievable goal. It provides a focal point of motivation. The “vision” is usually defined as being able to foresee the future, and developing a plan to meet the future needs. Collins and Porras (1989) define vision as “the ability to see the potential in or necessity of opportunities right in front of you. . . vision isn’t forecasting the future, it is creating the future by taking action in the present.” (p. 87)

Approaches to the Study of Leadership

Yukl (1989) identified four approaches for studying leadership. The “power influence approach” attempts to understand leadership effectiveness in terms of the amount and type of power possessed by the leader. This approach would examine how power is acquired, lost, and maintained. The “behavior approach” looks at the actual tasks performed by leaders. This involves evaluating daily activities and behavioral characteristics of leaders. The “trait approach” looks at the personal attributes of leaders, such as energy, intuition, creativity, persuasiveness, and foresight. The “situational approach” examines leadership in terms of its relationships with environmental factors, such as superiors, subordinants, and peers. This approach is often referred to as contingency theory because the role of the leader is contingent on the situation.

Another consideration in the study of leadership is that most theorists believe that managerial and leadership skills are different. “Leaders create and articulate vision, managers insure it is put into practice” (Syrett and Hogg, 1992, p.5).

Kotter (1990) elaborates on the differences. Management focuses on dealing with complexity, while leadership involves dealing with change. Management is committed to planning and budgeting, while leaders formulate and vision and set an organizational direction. Management is concerned with organizing and staffing, and leadership involves aligning people to a shared vision. Management is controlling and problem solving; leadership is motivating and inspiring.

Bennis (1990) also makes a strong distinction between leading and managing. A leader is a conceptualist with an entrepreneurial vision. A leader needs to be concerned with the big picture and the long-range future of an organization. Managers, on the other hand, are concerned with day-to-day routine operations, and part of their objective is to isolate leaders from these operations.

Are the qualities of managers and leaders mutually exclusive? Can a single person possess both leadership and management skills? Kotter (1990) believes that “smart companies value both kinds of people and work hard to make them part of the team.” Even more importantly, “they can begin to groom their top people to provide both.” (p. 16-17)

Vision

Vision “periodically provides an organization with a feeling of unity in its sense of direction” (Dilenschneider, 1992, p. 24). Dilenschneider argues that even in the best organizations, unity of purpose only occurs for brief periods of time. “It’s self-interest that drives moment-by-moment behavior in almost all organizations, unless you’re talking about a band of saints.” (p. 25)

According to Dilenschneider (1992), there are three ways for a leader to develop a vision. The first is for the leader to develop a personal vision and to then communicate it to the organization. This relies heavily on the leader’s ability to communicate the vision to the organization, and to persuade the members of the organization to accept it. The second is to buy a vision by hiring a consultant. According to Dilenschneider, the disadvantage of this method is that it often results in a “canned solution” that has been watered down so that it is adaptable to many organizations. In contrast, Kotter (1990) states that “what’s crucial about a vision is not its originality but how well it serves the interests of important constituencies — customers, stockholders, employees — and how easily it can be translated into a realistic competitive strategy.” (p. 19) The third way to develop a vision is to assemble the top managers to create a consensus vision. Dilenschneider argues that the collaborative creation of vision “probably leads to the most durable and effective results.” (p. 17) In effect, Dilenschneider is proposing a variation of the Delphi forecasting method as a way of creating a vision.

Communicating a vision is obviously as important as its creation. This involves more than simply articulating its message. A vision must be communicated through clearity of action. Dilenschneider (1992) emphasizes that need to know “inside-out” communications, where managers examine the communication process itself. (p. 20)

Sustaining a vision may be more difficult than its creation. Conviction is the glue that gives a vision staying-power. Dilenschneider (1992) points out that sucessful leaders “have recognized how important it is to sell rightness emotionally, not just intellectually.” (p. 24) This provides the fuel for sustained focus (i.e., conviction).

Vision and organizational culture are linked, each having an effect on the other. Dilenschneider (1992) writes that the vision of a leader in a new organization shapes the culture, while in mature organization, the leader must choose a vision that accomodates the exisitng organizaitonal culture. Unlike many theorists, Dilenschneider believes that corporate culture is “shaped by lore” (p. 26), and thus requires generations to make significant changes. Ritualized behavior, established over long periods of time, are especially immutable to change. Dilenschneider recommends that leaders find ways to support positive rituals, and to keep the vision in harmony with the organizational culture.

Leadership Style

Psychologist Kurt Lewin (1951) studied leadership methods by designing an experiment to compare autocratic and democratic leadership styles. As the experiment progressed, one of the democratic leaders was recategorized as laissez-faire. The autocratic leaders groups tended to be quarrelsome and work progressed at a modest rate. When the leader was not present, work came to a halt. The laissez-faire group ran haphazardly and work progressed at a slow rate. The democratic groups ran smoothly even when the leader was absent, and the relationships of group members were more friendly. Democratic leaders openly discussed issues with group members and encouraged them to join in making decisions. Uris (1964) argues that effective managers use all three methods of leadership depending on the particular circumstance.

During the 1950s, leadership studies were conducted at Ohio State University and the University of Michigan. The Ohio State leadership studies (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin and Winer, 1957; Hemphill and Coons, 1957) resulted in the creation of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), a commonly used instrument to assess leadership behavior.

The Ohio State studies used a 150 item questionnaire to examine how subordinants perceived their supervisor’s behavior. Factor analyses of the questionnaire revealed two behavior constructs, which were later labeled “consideration” and “initiating structure”. Consideration included those items that indicated a leader’s friendliness, supportiveness, and compasion. Initiating structures were items that indicated the degree of structure that a leader imposed on subordinants (e.g., deadlines, assigning tasks, and following standard procedures). In a large correlational study, Fleishman and Harris (1962) reported that turnover rate was negatively correlated with consideration, and positively associated with initiating structure, although they emphasized the nonlinearity of the relationships. “There appear to be certain critical levels beyond which increased Consideration or decreased Initiating Structure have no effect on turnover or grievance rate.” (p. 53) In a summary of literature, Yukl (1989) reports that the effect of consideration has been confirmed, but the results of studies on initiating structure have not been clear or consistent.

The University of Michigan leadership studies (Katz and Kahn, 1952; Katz, Maccoby, and Morse, 1950; Katz, et al., 1951) were a series of correlational studies to examine the relationships between leadership behavior, group processes, and group productivity. Manager effectiveness was equated with group productivity. In a summary of these studies, Likert (1961) writes that three types of leadership behavior were found to be good predictors of management effectiveness: task-oriented behavior, relationship-orientated behavior, and participative leadership. Task-orientated behaviors are the same as the initiating structures in the Ohio studies, and relationship-orientated behaviors are similar to the consideration construct in the Ohio studies. The difference between the two studies was that the Michigan study viewed participative leadership as separate from the other relationship-orientated behaviors.

Participative Leadership

Participative leadership refers to the degree that to which other people can influence the leader’s decisions. It is interesting to note that this is nearly the opposite of the definition of power. Yukl (1989) presents a taxonomy of four decision making procedure categories. 1) The autocratic decision is where the manager seeks no input from other people. 2) The consultation decision is where the manager seeks opinions from others, but makes the decision alone. 3) The joint decision is where the manager and others discuss the problem and make a joint decision. 4) The delegation decision is one where the manager gives others the authority to make the decision. Yukl is careful to point out that decision making is actually a continuum instead of discrete categories.

The first studies on participative leadership were conducted by Lewin, Lippitt, and White in 1939. Hundreds of studies have been conducted since that time with mixed results. Claims have been made that participative management results in improved decisions, facilitation of change, identificaiton with leadership, and a high level of achievement (Williams and Huber, 1986).

Recent literature reviews and meta analyses have been inconclusive (Miller and Monge, 1986; Schweiger and Leana, 1986; Wagner and Gooding, 1987). Sometimes participative leadership works, and other times it doesn’t. Generally, studies that used questionnaires to assess employee satisfaction found positive results, while those that used objective measures of productivity were weaker and inconsistent. Most research in participative leadership has consisted of short-term field studies. Yukl (1989) argues that many of these studies may have been actually measuring the “Hawthorne effect”, a temporary positive effect from being the focus of attention.

Situtational Leadership Theory

Situtational leadership theory refers to belief that the relative importance of leadership behaviors depends on the situation. Aspects of the situation that modify the importance of behavior are called situational moderator variables.

Fiedler (1964, 1967) proposed the LPC contingency model to predict leadership effectiveness from a measure called the least preferred coworker score. The leader is asked to grade their least favorite worker on a series of bipolar adjectives (e.g. pleasant versus unpleasant, friendly versus unfriendly, gloomy versus cheerful). The scales are arranged so that the most lenient learder would recieve the highest LPC score. Fiedler’s rationale was that leaders who received high LPC scores were primarily motivated to have positive relationships, and that the achievement of task objectives was secondary. The degree to which LPC scores correlated with effectiveness was modified by a “situational favorability variable”. The situational favorability variable consisted of three aspects of the situation: leader-manager relations, position power, and task structure. Leadership effectiveness was associated with good leader-manager relations, high postion power (authority), and high task structure. Fiedler’s LPC theory was originally well received, however, empirical support for the model has been weak (Yukl, 1981).

Another contingency model was proposed by Fiedler in 1986. Cognitive resource theory attempts to examine the conditions whereby intelligence, experience, and expertise become predictive of leadership effectiveness. Fiedler proposed that the effect of cognitive resources becomes significant only when the leader is directive, when there is little stress, and when the leader has some expertise that cannot be performed by subordinants. The theory predicts that in low-stress situations, the leader’s intelligence has an strong impact on effectiveness, and in high-stress conditions, the leader’s expertise is more important.

Managerial Traits and Skills

Early studies on managerial traits were limited to standardized intelligence and apptitude tests. Stogdill (1948) reviewed 124 early studies on managerial traits. The review concludes that “a person does not become a leader by virtue of the possession of some combination of traits. . .” (p. 64). More recents studies have also tested for job-relevant technical knowledge and administrative skills. In a 1974 review of 163 more recent studies, Stogdill reversed his earlier position, and concluded that:

The leader is charaterized by a strong drive for responsibility and task completion, vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals, venturesomeness and originality in problem solving, drive to exercise initiative in social situations, self-confidence and sense of personal identity, willingness to accept consquences of decision and action, readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, ability to influence other persons’ behavior, and capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand. (p. 81)

Bass (1981) has pointed out that certain leadership traits increase the likelihood of a leader’s effectiveness, however, they do not guarantee it. He advocates a contingency model, where to a large degree, the importance of a particular trait depends upon the nature of the leadership situation.

Most theorists have a unique list of competencies which they believe are important to leadership success. While there is some overlap, the diversity of opinions is surprising. As revealed by the following examples, there seems to be little agreement on the most important leadership attributes.

Bennis (1990) identifies four leadership competencies. 1) Management of attention through a compelling vision; 2) Communication skills necessary to transfer a vision to others; 3) Being able to establish trust through reliability and constancy; and 4) Knowing one’s skills and employing them effectively.

Giblin (1990) defines a four-attribute framework for assessing leadership qualities: 1) resourcefulness, 2) astuteness, 3) compatibility, and 4) knowledge. An individual posessing these qualities is likely to be perceived as a leader by others.

Dilenschneider (1992) cites five ingredients for leadership: 1) vision and focus, 2) practical values, 3) awareness and use of time, 4) empowerment and motivation, and 5) objectivity and judgement. According to Dilenschneider’s theory, there are five core organizational values (integrity, accountability, diligence, perseverance, and discipline). Leaders derive power by adopting a set of values consistent with those deemed worthwhile by the organization.

Rolf Osterberg (1987) identifies five “components of awareness” essential for business leadership. 1) Hierarchies based on power are detrimental to personal development, and must be eliminated. 2) The managers role becomes one of “coordinating a self-organizing, self-renewing and self-transcending system.” (p. 69) 3) Problems are not deferred to higher levels (since there are none), but instead are solved by the workers who have the problems. 4) Goal setting is eliminated because it does not encourage exploration and personal development. 5) Profits are reinvested in the company and not used to support other processes. Osterberg admits that these premises will be a threat to established organizations. He also acknowledges that attempts to persuade them will be futile. Instead, he recommends that documented examples “will speak much more loudly than any statistics. Every such example will be a stone thrown into the water spreading its ripples. Let us trust the ripple effect which has its own life and its own power.” (p. 71)

Conflict and Stress

A common misperception is that the long hours and demands of higher levels of authority are associated with higher levels of stress. However, research has shown that nonexecutives experience more stress than executives, and that blue-collar workers have the most stress of all (Williams and Huber, 1986).

Conflict within organizations is a source of stress. Classical theorists believed that conflict could be dealt with by exercising a strong dose of authority. Neoclassical theorists attempted to eliminate conflict through improved communications and understanding. Neither approach is entirely acceptable to modern theorists.

Today, organizational researchers recognize both the positive and negative contributions of conflict. It is simplistic to think that conflict in organizations can be eliminated. Power struggles, disagreements over goals, competition among workers, overlapping and abiguous responsibilities, personality clashes, and labor-management polarizations are all potential sources of conflict. The negative aspects of conflict are readily apparent, resulting in violence, stress, insomnia, and a host of other delaterious effects. In contrast, Schmidt (1974, p. 5) reported several positive outcomes from conflict:

· Better ideas were produced.

· People were forced to search for new approaches.

· Long-standing problems surfaced and were dealt with.

· People were forced to clairfy their views.

· The tension stimulated interest and creativity.

· People had a chance to test their capacities.

Confilict can serve as an catalyst for change. It can inspire people to search for new solutions to problems. Conflict creates stress, which can be destructive and painful (distress), or invigorating and motivating (eustress).

During the early 1950’s, Daniel Funkenstein (1957) conducted a series of experiments at Harvard to study how people deal with stress. He looked at peoples’ emotions after they had been scolded and chided. Funkenstein found that people reacted differently to stress. Some directed their anger inward, while others directed their anger at others. Stress manifested itself in negative ways (e.g., fright, panic, and apprehesiveness), and positive ways (e.g., performance anxiety). People also differed in the degree of emotion evoked by the stressful situation. Funkenstein reported that the most successful way of dealing with stress was either with no emotion, or with performance anxiety.

Karl Albrecht (1979) argues that stress is basically a negative emotion that manifests itself through body signals, such as a nervous stomach, clammy hands, perspiration, and headaches. Albrecht maintains that body signals provide access to our inner feelings that are not available through intellectual analysis. Deep relaxation techniques are recommended as a way of eliminating stress.

Peter Serge (1990) views some forms of tension as a positive factor, and states that “people with high levels of personal mastery have a great tolerance for living with creative tension.” (p. 132) He also recognizes that “emotional tension” can occur when we are honest with ourselves about the gap between where we are and where we want to be. These manifest as sadness, disappointment, hopelessness, and anger.

Obsolescence

Obsolescence is an important issue in today’s working environment. Prior to the industrial revolution, the training that one received as an apprentice would last for their lifetime. Increasingly rapid technological changes have made it necessary for many people to update their training every ten or fifteen years. (Uris, 1986) For example, until recently graphic designers’ produced layouts by “keylining” (i.e., cutting and pasting). Many years of training were needed to acquire the requisite precision. In the last five years, desktop publishing has replaced keylining to such a degree that nearly all graphic design is now done on the computer. Those designers who have not updated their training find less work available, and those who have updated their training find themselves being replaced by newly-trained younger workers who are willing to work for less wages. In addition, younger workers cost less in medical and pension expenses.

Quality of Work Life

The quality of work life (QWL) is an outgrowth of the human relations movement. Its goals are to increase productivity, while at the same time improve employee satisfaction by addressing the emotional needs of workers. The purpose of QWL management is to create an atmosphere of freedom, participation, and autonomy in which the worker is a partner in sharing a common objective.

Richard Walton (1985), one of the founders of the QWL approach, identified eight factors to improve the working life of employees. These are:

1. Fair compensation – Workers should receive sufficient pay and benefits to reach an acceptable standard of living, and the pay should be similar to others performing equivalent work.

2. Safety and health – The work environment should not pose any physical or environmental dangers to workers.

3. Self-development – Management must find ways that enable workers to develop themselves.

4. Growth and security – Training should be provided to avoid obsolescence, and workers should be encouraged to make use of their advanced skills.

5. Social integration – Management needs to provide an atmosphere of encouragement and openness that is free from prejudice.

6. Constitutionalism – Management must recognize that workers have rights, and workers need to be assured that they have a way to protect those rights.

7. Life space – Management must recognize that employees have life outside of work, and they should look for ways to minimize the impact of working life on the workers’ families.

8. Social relevance – The company maintains high ethics, and acts responsibly with respect to its products, marketing, and the environment.

Many companies have adopted the QWL approach, but it has not been without problems. Implementing QWL procedures has often been troublesome. Some workers, and even top management, have been slow to integrate these changes into their thinking. Initial enthusiasm sometimes diminishes when immediate results of the QWL approach are not recognized. Workers occasionally feel that their new roles and status have been diminished as a result of QWL implementation.

Resistance to Change

One of the problems in implementing new ideas in companies is that both workers and management are often resistant to even minor changes. Psychologist Kurt Lewin (1951) developed a “field” approach to evaluate the positive and negative factors affecting change. Lewin observed that change involved a three-step process: unfreezing, moving, and then refreezing on a new level. Lewin reported that behavior would frequently return to the previous level unless a “force field” was created to stablize the behavior on the new level.

There are three major factors that make change threatening in organizations (Uris, 1986). The first is that sudden announcements and unexpected developments make people feel like they have no control. Resistance is a way of coping with an unexpected situation. The second is that people often see change as threatening to their positions of authority. The third is that people fear that change will result in some kind of loss, such as status or privileges.

Management can counteract these fears by implementing a program that includes the people who will be affected by the change. This begins with an announcement that clearly justifies the need for change. Management seeks the cooperation and acceptance of the workers by minimizing the negative effects and maximizing the positive effects. Most importantly, management should seek the participation of the workers in the planning process. Requesting workers opinions and suggestions will provide valuable information to management, and it will also make workers’ feel a part of the process (Uris, 1986).

Empowerment

According to Jaffe and Scott (1992), “empowerment means that the organization shifts from limiting the power to determine its future and how it will get there to a few top executives, to include every level of the organization in the process.” (p. 140) They believe that human resources like creativity, innovation, and motivation are the keys to successful organizations

Unlike many theorists, Jaffe and Scott (1992) do not equate empowerment with the maximization of personal freedom. On the contrary, they stress that freedom is constrained by a commitment to organizational visions, and that workers knowingly and willingly accept the organization’s need to control the resources and information. They argue that “empowerment is not an individual process” (p. 141), but rather, it requires an organization willing to make structural changes to create a context for new behaviors.

Effective leadership manifests itself throughout an organization by empowering its members. Bennis (1990) list four themes of empowerment.

· People feel they are making a difference.

· People regard learning and competence as important.

· People feel they are part of a community or family.

· People believe their work is exciting.

Haas (1990) describes an empowered organization as one that has “shed the traditional authoritarian practices.” (p. 106) The manager becomes a facilitator rather than a decision maker.

Trust is critical to the process of empowerment. (Dilenschneider, 1992) A leader must have a genuine trust in the organization and its workers. Ouchi’s (1981) book on Japanese management practices stresses the importance of supervisors who have a high level of trust in their subordinants.

© Dr. David Walonick – used with permission
Web

survey software to design online surveys and questionnaires David’s free web survey software will create sophisticated internet surveys as well as written questionnaires and scripts for telephone interviewing. Plus, you’ll find information on questionnaire design and marketing research methods.