http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/sep2009/ca2009091_828190.htm?chan=careers_managing+your+team+page_top+stories
Believe it or not, employees thrive and derive their actions from managers and supervisors. If a leader in an organization demands things from their employees that they do not perform themselves they cannot expect employees to comply. Employees will have a harder time taking rules set in place seriously because "the best" of them (managers) do not follow them either, so why should we?
Consequences that arise and easily be defused by a simple "I never see you do any tasks on this list, why should I do all the work?" Even if employees are not as bold to utter those words, it may reside in their thoughts and their actions will eventually coincide with these thoughts unconsciously. Managers need to be sure they are setting good examples for employees to follow. Yes, everyone is human and yes we all forget and have flaws but intentional laziness should be unacceptable in the workplace, especially by managers.
Hard working managers make employees work harder and ultimately helps to build a strong team. This quote from the article stuck out to me the most because I find so much truth in it on a daily basis. "And only the most confident leaders are willing to surround themselves with people who will point out what they're doing wrong—and be rewarded for their honesty. More often, everyone is forced to endure the boss' weaknesses in silence." Again, this brings stronger individuals to the job to constitute constant growth. When the boss' weakness is dealt with in silence it sometimes says there is a fear present that if someone points out the flaw they will be punished. Because of this an organization's growth may be stifled. Leaders should recognize their blind spots to assist in moving an organization and its people forward. This has a bigger impact than people realize.
This article talks about how to better recognize "blind spots" and small ways to deal with them. This is something that could seriously impact an organization because its success depends on the will, drive and motivation of not only its employees but its top employees, leaders (managers, supervisors, and head personnel).
Raymi Smith
In reading this post, I thought about how some of these actions between managers and their employees could be related to workplace stressors. Giving an employee a task they are not comfortable with could be due to role ambiguity, role conflict,and role overload. A manager should pinpoint the problem with the employee and make sure the employee is 100 percent comfortable with the task at hand.
ReplyDeleteThis could also be related to path-goal theory. According the path-goal theory, the leader removes any roadblocks along the way of the employee completing the task and that the leader creates and environment that subordinates find motivational. It should be a leaders responsibility to make sure the task is possible for the employee to complete, but can path-goal theory maybe suggest that the leader may be doing too much for the employee? Do you guys see path-goal theory as a potential problems for leaders in the sense that they may be paving the way 'too much' for employees?
-Lauren Brooks
I think most of path-goal theory would work well in a work setting. I do see how one could possibly think that path-goal theory could create potential problems for leaders and employees relying on them too much. For example, with directive leaders, which are leaders who provide specific directions to their employees. The lead employees by clarifying role expectations, setting schedules, and making sure that employees know what to do on a give work day. I feel like this type of leadership style could make an employee depend more on their leader than they probably should. An employee is getting paid to do work and have their own responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteHowever, supportive leaders, participative leaders, and achievement-oriented leaders I feel would increase an employees performance without having that dependency. A supportive leader can lend emotional support and I think this would have a positive outcome. A leader who shows that they care gives the employee a better outlook on their job and going to work. A participative leader shows employees that they are not better than they employees and involve them in important decisions. Lastly achievement-oriented leaders help their employees by setting goals and helping the employees reach those goals. These three things will help employees be better employees and more productive at work.
Have you had any personal experiences with any types of these leaders? Did they help you or were you indifferent to the leadership?
Tara Tolomeo
I found this article very refreshing. There are various types of leaders those who are designated and those who emerge out of the respect of others. This article address' how leaders need to recognize their "blind spots."
ReplyDeleteI have experienced in previous jobs managers who tell employees they have to do task a certain way but have wither never done the task or do not wish to change the way of completing the task because they think it's the "right" way. I feel that this article should be read but every manager and hopefully they are able to recognize that they are humans and can make mistakes as a manager.
I have experienced leaders who are very supportive and believe in theory Y that employees are self motivated and do not have to be micro managed.
The biggest thing for me as an employee is everyone can bring something to the table its a matter if leaders allow employees to show their talent. Also, realize you can learn from others who are new which is a moto Pike's Fish Market uses, which seems to work for them.
~Apollonia