Monday, November 18, 2013

Control and Self-Management



One of the more vexing problems for leaders is the ability to “control” individuals when an authority relationship does not exist (e.g. person not in the same hierarchy, business, department or unit). For example, many organizations are structured in such a way that legitimate power is vested in those at the top of a function. However, these same individuals may perform roles that extend across the enterprise – e.g. human resources, compliance or legal. As a result, there may only be a small measure of "legitimate" control over the people they need to influence. Organizations can address this issue by constructing a so-called "dotted-line" reporting relationship, but the same degree of weight does not exist in comparison to a direct reporting leader-follower relationship. In other instances, when there are parallel organizations (e.g. two subsidiaries) of the same holding company – and cooperation between organizations is essential for the success of both units – the hierarchical separation can render management difficult.

Thus a leader must learn to influence people they do not directly "control." This can happen when the leader has either a power that transcends the legitimate basis of authority (i.e. hierarchy)or holds a “personal power.”1 Personal or referent power signals the leader either has a specialized expertise or attractive qualities that draw people to them, making them want to follow.1 Beyond these bases of power, a leader can also influence by understanding the needs and desires of those he/she is trying to influence. This knowledge enables the leader to respond by helping the individual reach his or her goals. Expectancy theory reveals that when a worker realizes he or she can get what is sought, he or she is more likely to put in the effort to reach the performance required to get it.6 This same approach applies to workers in or outside the leader's hierarchy. 

Organizational Structure

Becoming an astute leader who can influence across the organization is essential. Often businesses are not organized to allow the functions to be controlled by the same individuals. The primary reason is one person could not handle the vast range of responsibilities, exacting the need for a division of labor. However, this leads to the aforementioned problem of trying to lead without true authority. 

This assumes that authority is a necessary condition of leading. Is it true? Not really. Even when a follower directly reports to a leader, the worker can still choose to accept directives or not. In practice most do because of other powers the leader holds such as the authority to punish, fire, or reward. However, since the choice exists, the problem of no real control exists in nearly all leader-follower situations.
 
Self-management

A foundational skill for leading is a high degree of Emotional Intelligence2 (EI); it describes a series of skills and abilities across two domains – Personal Competencies and Social Competencies. One must be able to manage one’s self and the relationships one holds. Emotional Intelligence can be learned and developed through training and mentoring.2
  
EI is a necessary skill because of the benefits it affords a leader. For example, the leader who has been shown to exercise self-control or a competence in behaving appropriately in crisis situations earns idiosyncrasy credits3 from his or followers. Credits afford the leader flexibility to take greater risks and leeway in behaviors as a means to pursue organizational goals.4 Idiosyncrasy credits are earned rights that the leader can build and then use to "push the envelope" in moving the business forward. The more credits the leader has, the more latitude is extended.3 "...[S]igns of competence and conformity [early in the relationship with the led] will permit later nonconformity to be better tolerated."3 (p. 14)

Directing Others

Effective leaders have a way of being that differs from the traditional view of authority and control. Instead of acting and behaving as being in charge, effective leaders are more likely to view their job as a role. In their role, the leader is responsible for setting strategy and direction and executing change in the organization. Fulfillment of these and other responsibilities, including making sure all of the management processes are operating efficiently and effectively, are of critical importance to the organization. While the leader is positioned with ultimate responsibility, he/she should not assume or act as the controller – instead a give-and-take partnership is advised. "...[B]y sharing power and allowing followers to influence them, leaders develop leadership skills in others, as well as achieve further gains through their greater participation in involvement."3 (p. 13)

Understanding the Person

Transformational leadership1 behaviors establish a different type of arrangement with those in the follower position. One dimension of transformational leadership is called individualized consideration; it describes a leader who extends personalized attention to those he/she is leading.1 A close leader-follower relationship can improve worker motivation because leaders become knowledgeable of the desires and goals of the worker, providing an opportunity to assist. In turn, the worker is more likely to increase effort to reach performance. This behavior can impact direct reports and others not in the control of the leader.

Self-serving Leaders

Alternatively, leaders who follow a darker path and place their needs and goals ahead of all others eventually will lose the right to channel others. This reaction is probably truer for workers who are not in the direct hierarchy of the leader. Even when a leader holds charismatic appeal, it will be less effective if their outlook is solely self-beneficial (i.e. personalized charismatic leadership).

Leaders and followers are in a give-and-take relationship and are equal partners in benefitting the enterprise. Leaders struggle with those they are trying to lead when there is no direct hierarchical "control." However, leaders need to recognize that the problem of leading outside a position of control invades all leader-follower relationships. Therefore, leaders need to address leading and discover the principles that will allow them to influence regardless of the worker's reporting relationship.

Please feel free to add comments.

References
1 Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2011). Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

2 Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York, New York: Bantam Books.

3 Hollander, E.P. (1997). “How and Why Active Followers Matter in Leadership,” E.P. Hollander & L.R. Offermann (Eds.), The Balance of Leadership and Followership (pp. 11-28): University of Maryland.

4 Stone, T.H., Cooper, W.H. (2006). “Idiosyncrasy Credit Theory Revisited,” ASAC, 2006, Banff, Alberta. Retrieved online 10-11-13.
5 Popper, M. (1999). “The Sources of Motivation of Personalized and Socialized Charismatic Leaders.” Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 22, 231 - 246.

6 Pinder, C.C. (1998). “Expectancy-Valence Theories of Work Motivation,” Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior (pp. 337-364). Glenview, IL: Scott Foreseman.



No comments:

Post a Comment