http://www.businessweek.com/management/treat-your-employees-like-neighbors-10212011.html
With permission of Dr. Sheep, I have decided to write about an article a little bit outside of our normal blog posts. I stumbled upon an article in Business Week that correlates with chapter four in our book, Style Approach. The article deals with what style a leader should have his/her company most emulate: a family, a neighborhood, a hierarchy, or a market.
Chapter four stresses the fact that there are basically two general kinds of behaviors leadership can compose of: Task behaviors and relationship behaviors. Where task relates to the goal or task, and relationship relates to interpersonal relationships with employees and how to try and combine those two behaviors together. The book says, “the central purpose of the style approach is to explain how leaders combine those two kinds of behaviors to influence subordinates in their efforts to reach a goal” (69).
With that being said, in the Business Week article “Treat Your Employees Like Neighbors: Successful companies have elements of both hierarchies and neighborhoods” written by Art Markmen, who references Alan Page Fiske, a successful leader will combine the concept of a Hierarchy (Task Behavior) and a Neighborhood (Relationship Behavior). Markmen to a certain degree associates Hierarchy and Task Behavior by saying, “Most companies establish levels of management with the expectation that higher levels take on more responsibility for guiding the company—in exchange for higher pay and benefits. The hierarchy can be particularly effective when people can work their way up through the organization”. In other words, having a structured hierarchy will initiate a structure of organized groups, defined responsibilities, and that will stress technical and production aspects of a job. However, that is just half the style needed.
With that being said, in the Business Week article “Treat Your Employees Like Neighbors: Successful companies have elements of both hierarchies and neighborhoods” written by Art Markmen, who references Alan Page Fiske, a successful leader will combine the concept of a Hierarchy (Task Behavior) and a Neighborhood (Relationship Behavior). Markmen to a certain degree associates Hierarchy and Task Behavior by saying, “Most companies establish levels of management with the expectation that higher levels take on more responsibility for guiding the company—in exchange for higher pay and benefits. The hierarchy can be particularly effective when people can work their way up through the organization”. In other words, having a structured hierarchy will initiate a structure of organized groups, defined responsibilities, and that will stress technical and production aspects of a job. However, that is just half the style needed.
The other half is creating a Neighborhood (Relationship Behavior) so not to just be a structured organization without any consideration to others. Markmen states a leader can create this Neighborhood by, “Seemingly small actions like supporting families going through difficult times and providing education opportunities for employees create a general sense of community. This investment in community is repaid in behaviors that ultimately affect the company’s bottom line”. Basically stating that building a relationship with employees is key so that there is camaraderie, respect, and trust. There needs to be a liking or possibly even as far as to say a “human” side to the leader so that the employees don’t perceive the leader as heartless.
One of Markmen’s thoughts did have a bit of say “controversy” in my mind. He stated that, “A family relationship with your employees isn’t optimal either. Everyone has to shoulder a fair share of the burden. Indeed, this is one reason why many companies have strict rules about nepotism. Hiring family members (or treating employees like family) blurs the lines between relationships in ways that can cause trouble down the line”. I actually have to disagree with this statement to a certain extent. I myself am working for a family business that was established in 1949. With both family members at the head of the company, and employees that seem like family members. The company does only have 72 employees, nevertheless, there is a family like setting within the company and the CEO makes an effort to actually keep it that way. Now, this company of course is a private company and does not have a board of directors, but still if a company is effectively running well, is it that bad to be more of relationship behavior company? Does the answer may have to do in part with how large a company or organization is?
Combining a Hierarchy and Neighborhood, or in other terms task and relationship behaviors together is what the style approach preaches for effective leadership. This article, despite the different terminology, actually states the same correlation that our book Leadership by Peter Northouse states in chapter four. Does Markmen’s make a point here of Task and Relational behavior can simply be swapped out with the terms Hierarchy and Neighborhood?
I think the distinction between "families" and "neighborhoods" is a point well made. I like his example that as a "neighbor" one might change your flat tire or lend you something and not expect money or something of great value in return. However, aren't we aware of how many times our neighbors depend on us. If repeatedly they keep asking to mow their lawn, to water their grass, or watch their pets without offering anything in return we are going to start getting annoyed. We probably won't keep doing those things without recognition and some sort of pay back. I think this is why he says families will not work in organizations. If you do something for your family member you don't normally expect to get anything in return because they are family. In organizations if you are constantly doing something for your family members and they are not helping you in return then you are pulling most of the weight. I think Mike is right that in small organizations this might work out. However, in larger organizations having family working together in the same store, for instance, could cause problems. Relationship problems could be brought into it. Favoritism could be at a very high level because you want your family to succeed.
ReplyDeleteI think his task and relationship being hierarchy and neighborhoods is pretty accurate. My only problem with it is that "hierarchy" does not necessarily relate to the task. It means that people move up in an organization, and each time they move up they will take on more tasks or more important tasks. It does not directly relate to Style Approach because "hierarchy" is not a means for getting work accomplished. It is just the structure for how people in an organization progress. After reading the article I am seeing it more as an organization must have structure and should have a sense of support and community within the organization.
I believe the terms 'hierarchy' and 'neighborhood' make the terms the book uses 'task orientated' and 'relationship orientated' seem easier to comprehend for maybe one who does not know business terms. The use of these two words also made it easier to see companies differently, when you compare them as hierarchy or neighborhood. I think this article definitely relates to chapter four, and it does a great job of describing companies with both orientations. I also agree that a company needs to have a great balance of these two, and a company with many one orientation simply will not ,be as successful.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree with Stephanie in saying smaller companies, a neighborhood approach can work. But in a larger corporation, trying to act as a neighborhood I cannot see working. A corporation is entirely too large to form such close relations with. I also believe family in a corporation like Stephanie said could create problems such an unfairness. An employee who is a family member may get a raise or promotion over another for unfair reasons. What do you guys think the outcome of a company with a purely task orientated attitude would have?
I think if a company was just task-oriented it would lack in cohesion. To accomplish a goal I think relationships must be built. "Relationship behaviors help subordinates feel comfortable with themselves, with each other, and with the situation in which they find themselves" (Northouse 69). It is hard to perform to the best of your abilities in a group setting without feeling comfortable with what you are doing. If workers are just viewed as a means for getting work accomplished I think that productivity will decrease. There must be a concern for subordinates from a leader (relationship-oriented). If there is not then there will be no trust, committment, personal worth, and good social relations. Having purely task-oriented attitude is similar to the Leadership Grid. Authority-Compliance (9,1) is an example of task-oriented. This style is result driven, and people are thought as tools to that end. The leaders are often controlling, demanding, hard driving, and overpowering. This seems stressful. It would not be a good fit for me. What about you guys?
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with you Stephanie. A simply only task only relationship oriented company would not work out to the best of its ability. Yes, you would most likely be able to hit targets and goals with high task orientation, but this may be hindered by not having any kind of relational orientation. As you stated, it helps subordinates become more comfortable with each other, thus creating a more welcoming and supporting environment. Further more, being able to place a strong emphasis on both task and interpersonal relationships promotes a high degree of participation and teamwork, while satisfying the need of employees to be involved and committed. This type of management would be classified as team management, or a (9,9), in the Blake and Mouton's Managerial leadership grid. Thus, in my opinion, these factors need to be in place to have a healthy working system and to achieve best results. There of course may certain situations where one or the other may be less needed, but in general both need to be encompassed in a general work environment.
ReplyDeleteIn a purely task-orientated company, I believe that motivation would be hard to come across. I feel that task-orientation could be related to transactional leaders. Northouse states that 'Transactional leadership differs from transformational leadership in that the transactional leader does not individualize the needs of subordinates or focus on their personal development". I believe that employees that have transformational leaders are more motivated, because they have a better relationship with their leader. Would you guys put a relationship between being relationship-orientated and being a transformational leader?
ReplyDeleteI think that a transformational leader definitely needs to be relationship-oriented as well as task-oriented. However, I do not think that a transformational leader can just be focused on the task. Transformational leadership is all about making a connection with followers. According to Northouse, "transformational leadership is the process whereby a person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower." Engaging and creating a connection is relationship-oriented.
ReplyDelete