CHAPTER 7: BEHAVIOR REGULATION. Chapter Outline. Considerations for Behavior Regulation

CHAPTER 7: BEHAVIOR REGULATION Chapter Outline 1. 2. 3. 4. Considerations for Behavior Regulation Formal & informal regulation Achieving specific ...
Author: Ethel Atkinson
1 downloads 0 Views 73KB Size
CHAPTER 7: BEHAVIOR REGULATION Chapter Outline 1.

2.

3.

4.

Considerations for Behavior Regulation Formal & informal regulation Achieving specific responses Political bases Regulation & leadership Previous Research Leader-oriented Follower-oriented Situational Interactionist Power & Influence Power Organizational politics

5.

Leadership Continuum

6.

Behavior Regulation Targets Dimensions of behavior Regulation goals

7.

Regulation Strategies Compliance Identification Internalization

8.

Regulation Tactics Constraints Principles

Management: Formal Regulation

Considerations for Behavior Regulation Behavior regulation is the act of exerting influence through symbol production, i.e., using messages, in order to achieve specified responses from the change target or your employees. Essentially, we use communication to regulate others’ behaviors. This message-based approach to managing contains four important considerations: regulation occurs formally and informally, regulation is directed at achieving specific responses, some regulation is political, and regulation is the exercise of leadership. Formal & informal regulation. Management team members are granted the formal authority and responsibility for regulating subordinate behaviors. Howe ver, regulation also occurs informally, regardless of position, and may be directed at supervisors and peers. Informal regulation is often examined within the context of organizational politics. Achieving specific responses. Responses may vary – some may be behavioral and observable while others may be intangible, such as changing attitudes 7-1

and opinions. This is quite similar to our earlier discussion of work vs. person communication content, where work content focuses on specific activities while person content deals with abstract, psychological issues. Each type of response is encouraged (or discouraged) by management’s communication strategy for influencing behavior. Consequently, it is critical the regulatory attempts are preceded by a precise description of the behavior(s) to be regulated (the method for defining a target of regulation will be described a little later). Political bases. Regulation is political when discretionary influence is used to establish one’s power base. This is in contrast to non-discretionary for formally approved, organizationally sanctioned power – i.e., a manager is given authority to direct subordinate activities. Regulation & leadership. Leadership has often been defined as the exercise of interpersonal influe nce. As such, the act of communicating to induce specific behaviors from others is a leadership act. Essentially, message production is a leader behavior and message consumption is a follower behavior. Previous research Researchers have treated leadership and leader as different concepts. Leadership is concerned with the nature and quality of “leader-follower” relationships. In contrast, a leader is the individual who exercises influence over another. This distinction has been the consequence of the evolution in leadership research. Four dominant approaches exist, with each being a consequence of overcoming weaknesses in previous models. The historical order of development was from leaderoriented to follower-oriented to situational to interactionist. Leader-oriented. Leader-oriented models were used to isolate specific characteristics of effective leaders. These models assumed that traits, behavior and, in some cases, physical characteristics would predict who would be an effective leader. Although much of this research has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation of effective leadership, some conclusions are warranted. For example, research has 7-2

found that intelligence, creativeness, diplomacy and tact, speaking well, knowledgability, persuasiveness, flexibility, assertiveness, and willingness to assume responsibility were characteristics of effective leaders. Follower-oriented. Inconsistency between some leader traits and effectiveness spawned follower-oriented research. This approach added another dimension to leadership models – it included investigation of the follower’s perceptions of the leader. Further, it emphasized “target audience analysis,” or consideration of a target’s needs and goals when formulating regulation strategy. This research led to advances in understanding relational aspects of leadership, such as power and influence. Situational. Desiring to find soldiers who could “lead,” the Department of Defense invested in university researchers in order to determine ways to produce better officers. Researchers developed situational tasks for groups of officer candidates. This was the beginning of “emergent” leadership research. The studies concluded that leaders vary as task conditions change. Therefore, the researchers concluded that leadership was situational. Interactionist. Interactionist researchers assumed that the best explanation of leadership occurred by simultaneously considering leader, follower, and situational models. Some interactionists, such as Fiedler (1967), assumed that leaders have a particular style (often described as task or work-oriented vs. interpersonal relations or person-oriented) suited for some circumstances, but not for others. Others have suggested that leaders should choose a style appropriate for the situation (Vroom & Yetton, 1973) Fiedler’s “contingency model of reality-centered leadership” described continuum of psychologically close (PCL) vs. psychologically distant (PDL) leaders. PCLs were described as permissive, nurturing, considerate, facilitative, understanding, and people -oriented. PDLs tend to be controlling, demanding, directive, confrontive, and work-oriented. Fiedler used his Least Preferred Co-Worker scale to determine whether an individual was PCL or PDL. Then, he developed a research design to 7-3

account for variations in leader-follower relations (positive vs. negative), task (structured vs. unstructured), and position power (strong vs. weak). (Figure 7-1 displays these combinations and the appropriate style for each. Relations

+ + + + -

Task

Power

structured

strong

structured

weak

unstructured

strong

unstructured

weak

structured

strong

structured

weak

unstructured

strong

unstructured

weak

Positive relations exist when

Leader should be:

there is a high level of trust and

PDL PDL PDL PCL PCL PCL PCL PDL

empathy. Structured tasks tend to be codified, repetitive, concrete, and observable; unstructured tasks are more abstract, have several alternatives, and task activities tend to vary. Position power is strong when the manager

Figure 7-1: Fiedler’s leadership model

possesses legal authority given by the organization; power is weak when the role does not contain authority to supervise. Fiedler indicated that PCL and PDL styles were “appropriate,” contingent on the situation, i.e., relations, task, and power. He suggested that individuals be placed in situations consistent with their leadership style. From this perspective, leader style training is viewed as a potential waste of resources because it will be ineffective. In contrast to Fiedler, Vroom and Yetton suggested that a manager should change leader behaviors according to the situation. They compared 5 leadership styles along a continuum ranging from autocratic to participative, similar to the unsharedshared leadership continuum and the role specialization/exchange or sharing on the communication design matrix. By asking a series of questions, such as “do I have enough information,” “can subordinates make good decisions,” “is acceptance by subordinates necessary, “is the behavior unstructured, and “is quality necessary,” a manager systematically eliminates leader styles and eventually is left with one most appropriate. In this model, the manager essentially determines the extent to which leadership will be shared with others.

7-4

Power & Influence Managers are not the only organizational members with power and influence. A worker may possess a power base not held by a supervisor. Similarly, power exertion is not always downward. Workers at any level may possess power bases that allow upward or lateral exertion of power and influence. Power. Power is the capacity of one to influence another. You may have the capacity, but that does not guarantee you will exert the influence. Influence is

Power base Reward

a relational application of power – Coercive

individuals cannot exert influence alone. Expert

The degree of influence one has is Referent

based on the perception of the Legitimate

follower(s). French and Raven (1959), who are probably the best known

Definition: The influence that A has over B when B -Perceives that A is instrumental in providing desired reward. Perceives that A possesses the capacity to punish B. Perceives that A possesses the knowledge or information that B needs. Positively identifies with A and wishes to be like A. Perceives that A possesses the legal authority to regulate behavior

Figure 7-2: French & Raven’s Bases of Power

researchers in the area, described power as one’s perception of the potential for another to possess a source of influence. They conceptualized bases of power as “relational” and “operant” when the influence agent (A) was perceived as possessing the means for another (B) to satisfy needs and goals. Their conceptualization included reward, coercive, expert, referent, and legitimate bases (see figure 7-2). With the possible exception of legitimate power, which is usually restricted to the management team, nearly any organizational member may be perceived as possessing a base for social power. French and Raven’s description of social power underscores the situational and relational nature of influence. In addition, the transitory nature of power is illustrated. For example, the ability to influence exists on when the target perceives a need for rewards, avoiding punishments, for information, for a role model, and so on. It isn’t necessary for the agent of influence to possess any of the bases; as long as the target perceives that the agent possesses a salient base, influence will exist.

7-5

Organizational politics. Organizational politics is made possible by the fact that anyone in an organization can possess a power base. Political behavior is an attempt at social influence, designed to promote or protect self-interest while threatening the self-interests of others (Porter, Allen, and Angle, 1983). Figure 7-3 contains a list of typical political behaviors (Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwick & Mayes, 1983). Researchers asked managers what characteristics were exhibited by effective organizational politics. The responses provided examples of discretionary communication activity to influence or regulate others behaviors. In other words, behavior regulation strategies are political

Common Political Behaviors ü Blaming/attacking ü Control of information ü Creation of image ü Support base development ü Ingratiating behaviors ü Develop strong allies ü Power coalition formation

when discretional, informal influence is used to expand personal power. Unlike formal regulation activity reserved for the management team, anyone may participate in organizational politics. (Not all regulation attempts are political; only those actions conducted informally that may intrude on another’s power base.) Informal regulation activities highlight political problems of organizations and employees. For example, Tushman (1983) indicated that politics affect the structure, formal authority, direction, and parameters of the organization. Realities of organizational life, including competition for resources, self-interest, and desire to accomplish objectives, provide strong stimuli for political behavior. Frost and Hayes (1983) described political behavior and resource control. They indicated that organizations were marketplaces of incentives and that members exchange incentives in pursuit of self-interest. Incentives (desired resources) provide the means to exert power and influence. Participants “bargain and trade” with one another to increase their resource quantities and to expand their power base for future use. A common misconception is that increased power will create invulnerability and success. Kotter (1977), however, indicated that increases in authority were associated with increase vulnerability. More authority and expanded influence increased the complexity of managing a power base and increases the potential for having “enemies.”

7-6

Madison, Allen, Porter, Renwick, and Mayes (1983) conducted a series of surveys to determine the nature of power and organizational politics. Results indicated managers believe that: 1. Politics occurs frequently. 2. 90% agreed politics is most prevalent at middle and upper levels of management. 3. It is most common in staff rather than line positions (Authors note: Perhaps this is because staff positions do not have an inherent, legally or formally sanctioned authority base.) 4. Those most susceptible (in order are) marketing, board members, sales, and manufacturing. 5. Politics are both helpful a nd harmful. Participation in politics is not inherently good or bad – politics can expedite solutions good for all. As a member of management, regardless of level, one is not generally given the opportunity to decide whether or not to participate in politics. Politics is often an “inevitable consequence” of being in a management role. However, we remind the reader to consider the National Communication Association’s Code of Ethics (see the appendices) as a tool for determining the “appropriateness” of political behavior. Management: Formal Regulation All of our discussion so far has centered on leadership issues, with emphasis on the fact that anyone can be a “leader.” This stands in contrast of management roles which are formally, legally sanctioned to regulation others’ behaviors. Thus, management consists of formally designated leaders who are responsible for creating and applying policy and procedures. However, there are some real distinctions across levels of management and what each level does: • • • •

Executives: Policy creators Managers of managers: Strategy creators Managers of supervisors: Plan of action creators Supervisors: Plan of action implementers 7-7

Presidents, CEOs, COOs, executive VPs, etc., are at the executive level; lower level VPs, Directors, and senior managers are at the “manager of managers” level; managers of supervisors are at the lower levels of middle management; supervisor are the last link in the regulatory communication chain and probably spend more time in this communication function than anyone else in the organization. Supervisors are the “first-line” leaders, responsible for achieving an optimum relationship between subordinate satisfaction and production while regulating behavior. As communication agents representing management to the work group, supervisors translate management policies and plans of action for workers. As the same time, supervisors are agents of the work group, communicating to upper levels of management. The supervisor is a critical communication link between management and non-management. In fact, research suggests that employee satisfaction and productivity is positively related to the worker’s perception of the supervisor’s ability to influence management (the Pelz Effect). Information management and problem/solution identification roles are primary for upper level managers. In contrast, behavior regulation and conflict management roles are primary for lower level managers, especially at the supervisory level. It is typical for supervisors to perform programmed decision-making while upper level decision-making processes are more indeterminate. Leadership Continuum Leadership, as a concept and a process, may be described as varying along a continuum with shared and unshared as the end-points (see figure 7 -4). This concept is used when comparing and differentiating consequences of using one type of leadership or another. The concept of organizationness vs. groupness is operationalized through leadership behaviors. Unshared leadership produces to organizationness; shared leadership produces groupness. As seen in figure 7 -4, when leadership processes is 7-8

unshared, it is common to find reliance on legitimate bases of power, specialization in work and communication roles, and an increasingly centralized structure. As leadership becomes more shared, there is less reliance on legal authority (any power base), greater work and communication role exchange, and an increasingly decentralized structure.

When leadership processes are – Unshared

Shared

Gibb (1969) Power base is,

distinguished groups Legitimate

Any

from organizations in Structure is,

order to explain Centralized

Decentralized

leadership. He Roles are,

described groups as Specialized

Shared

ORGANIZATIONNESS

GROUPNESS

collectives that do not need a leader because all members share

Figure 7-4

common values and satisfy needs through interdependence. In contrast, organizations were said to exist when members were differentiated from each other relative to responsibilities. Behavior Regulation Targets The range of behavior regulation targets is infinite. It would be impossible to list all behaviors that might be regulated. However, it is possible to categorize behavior targets by dimension. When dimensions are combined, a template for categorizing regulatory goals is produced. Dimensions of behavior. There are three major dimensions of behavior: content, change, and location. Content may be production- or need-related. Behavior change is concerned with maintenance or adoption. Location is internal or external, based on the unit of analysis (see Figure 7-5). Some behaviors are production related – others are need related. Productionrelated behaviors are those that contributed to individual, group, or organizational task 7-9

output. These tend to be concrete, tangible, and observable (e.g., behaviors required to produce a widget). Need-related behaviors are related to satisfaction of psychological and social needs. These are abstract and intangible. Compared to production-related behaviors, these are more difficult to define. At times, productionand need-related behaviors may be inconsistent or contrary to each other, requiring that managers determine a way to seek optimal balance between the two. Behavior maintenance is concerned with retention of action, whereas behavior adoption is a change of action. For many years, theorists thought of persuasion as inducing others to take on new behaviors. In reality, however, persuasion also includes

Adopt

behaviors perpetuation of behaviors that should be

Maintain

maintained. For example, if an employee begins work at 8

Internal Change work behavior inside Retain work behavior inside

Production External Change work behavior outside Retain work behavior outside

Internal Change support behavior inside Retain support behavior inside

Need External Change support behavior outside Retain support behavior outside

Figure 7-5

a.m. (and if that is when work is supposed to begin), it is desirable for the supervisor to maintain that behavior or the work process will be interrupted. Often, managers assume that existing, desirable behaviors will continue. However, many events could intervene – emotional disturbance, illness, family pressure – and cause and extinction of that behavior. So, regulation requires identification of behaviors to be maintained and appropriated systems to reinforce maintenance and well as specification of desired changes in action. Management should carefully evaluate the consequences of innovation or change. For example, new technology may offer an inherent mechanical improvement in the work process and require new behaviors. Yet, as the socio-technical system theorists discovered (see Chapter 4), the new behaviors were inconsistent with need related behaviors and caused an overall decline in productivity. If the behavior is solely within the manager’s area of authority and responsibility (i.e., unit of analysis), then the change target is internal; if the behavior involves elements beyond that manager’s area, then the change target is external. This 7-10

distinction is important because it hallmarks conditions that require coordination across the organization. In addition, being forced to make an internal/external distinction forces consideration of the potential for internal changes to have external ramifications. Regulation Goals. When combined, content, change, and location define goals for behavior regulation (see figure 7-5). Regulation Strategies After identifying the target, consideration can be given to the general strategy that will be use to regulate behavior. Communication, i.e., the use of symbols, is the most obvious manifestation of the management act and is the primary vehicle for implementing behavior regulation strategy. Three strategic options exist – compliance, identification, and internalization (Kelman, 1958). Compliance occurs when symbols are used t indicate reward or punishment; identification occurs when symbols reflect personal attraction or affection; internalization occurs when symbols are used to communicate reason, logic, etc. (Figure 7-6 outlines Kelman’s explanation of the causes and consequences of each strategy). Compliance. Organizations often reward and punish employees symbolically – verbal praise for good work and threats when performance is below expectations. This strategy uses external rewards and punishments to change or maintain behaviors. It assumes that humans are instinctively predisposed to seek rewards and avoid punishments. For example, employees behave in certain ways because they would rather have a job than be fired, earn more money than less, and receive praise rather than scorn. Compliance strategies are based primarily on social learning theories and require certain conditions to be successful. They are similar to McGregor’s (1960) description of a Theory X manager’s beliefs about employees and human behavior – people inherently dislike and will avoid work, people must be coerced to get them to put forth adequate effort toward organizational objectives, and the average human being prefers to be directed. Although compliance strategies have limited uses, many 7-11

organizations rely on these methods – often without recognizing the philosophy it assumes about employees. Compliance works best when behaviors are concrete and work-related, rather than abstract. It is difficult to use compliance for changing attitudes or values. Compliance is easier to obtain when behavior is concrete, measurable, discriminable, and clearly identified. Typically, compliance requires that behaviors be monitored. As such, compliance is a relatively short-term regulation strategy. Compliance has liabilities. It tends to ignore basic worker needs, which in turn may motivate personal behaviors inconsistent with work. When needs are ignored or when rewards are not provided, behavior may become disruptive.

Causes Basis for response

Compliance

Identification

Internalization

Concern for social effects

Concern for social anchorage

Meanscontrol Limitation of choice

Attractiveness

Concern for behavior & value congruence Credibility

Delineate role requirements

Reorganize means -ends framework

Monitoring

Salience of agent Changed perception of conditions for satisfying relationships Expectations defining a specific role

Relevance to values & issues Change in perception of conditions for value maximization Individual value system

Consequently, assessment of needsatisfaction levels is

Agent’s power source Means to achieve response

important prior to application of compliance strategy. Moreover, this is an expensive strategy

Consequences Insuring continued performance Conditions to eliminate response

since it requires constant monitoring. Much more

Location of system supporting response

must be spent on supervisory salaries and

Changed perception of social rewards External demands in specific setting

Figure 7-6: Kelman’s summary of differences across strategies

monitoring procedures (and, equipment). Also, there is a tendency for compliance users to accuse subordinates of non-compliance when production quotas are unmet, even when poor managerial planning and policy implementation are the primary culprits. Compliance requires role specialization, rather than participation in many work and communication activities. Managers are primarily information sources and 7-12

subordinates are primarily information receivers; managers identify and solve problems; subordinates implement solutions and are regulation targets. General competency in communication will decline among those communication roles rarely used. Managers don’t listen well because they don’t have to; subordinates don’t speak or write well, because they aren’t required to. Identification. Identification is facilitated through the use of symbols in an interesting way. Symbols represent attitudes that individuals have toward each other. Although these symbols may be abstract, it is usually easy to determine when people are communicating high and low levels of affection. This use of socio-emotional symbols profoundly influences social aspects of the organization and are primary in identification strategies. Although self-esteem is integral to all regulation strategies using persuasion, it is particularly important in identification. As self-esteem increases, self-persuasion becomes more effective; people who are liked have a more profound impact on behaviors than those who are disliked. An employee who likes a supervisor is more likely to behave in harmony with that supervisor. When a supervisor is disliked, identification isn’t effective. It is difficult to explain precisely why some people are liked and some are not. Many psychological theories attempt to describe affectionate relationships between persons, but most center on the consequences of such relationships. Fiedler (1966) indicated that liking relationships represented a kind of mutual trust between people. Similarly, liking relationships in organizations are based on trust. McGregor contrasted Theory X management when he described Theory Y philosophy, which is closely tied to inherent assumptions in identification. He indicated that Theory Y assumes: expenditure of effort in work is as natural as play or rest, humans will exercise self-direction and control to achieve objectives they are committed to, commitment is dependent on satisfaction associated with achieving objectives, the average human learns to accept and seek responsibility under proper 7-13

conditions, the capacity to exercise a relatively high degree of creativity in solving organizational problems is widely distributed, and under conditions of modern industrial life the potentialities of the average human are only partially utilized. Similar to McGregor, Kelman believed that identification is centered on social relationships, particularly interpersonal attractiveness. Berschied and Walster’s (1969) classic studies in attraction found that attraction primarily resulted from: propinquity or nearness, reduction of each others’ stress and anxiety, satisfaction of needs (such as avoiding social isolation and insecurity), similar perspective (attitudes, personalities, values, and beliefs), and provide positive outcomes through interpersonal cooperation (e.g., sense of belongingness, cohesiveness, and comfort). Identification is commonly used in organizations. Managers are often required to be “role” models for others; many leadership training programs are designed to teach managers how to be more effective as a role model. The assumption of these training programs is that subordinates will learn organizational behavior similarly to the ways children pattern behaviors after their parents’ actions or the ways that friends are likely to exhibit similar behavioral patterns. Identification is especially important in educational settings. Teachers might use identification to regulate student behaviors in the following way – The teacher establishes rapport with students; grading and evaluation of performance is deemphasized, but students become motivated t learn because they do not want to disappoint the teacher they admire. This is a very common approach with special education students, where specialists spend much time establishing a relationship with each client. Other examples of identification are abundant: Clergy use identification with church members, political office seekers use it to develop a common bond with voters, advertising campaigns use it as a basis for targeting audiences. In a similar way, employees are motivated to do a good job when they work for someone who facilitates supportive work relationships. Thus, maintenance or change occurs through the 7-14

salience of interpersonal relations, not because of a search for external rewards or fear of external punishments. Compared to compliance, identification is a more abstract strategy. Recall that compliance was more suited to short, term task behavior regulation; in contrast, identification is more concerned with to establishing, comfort, and psychological involvement. Identification does have limits. Supervisory costs for surveillance or monitoring activities may be reduced, but muc h time must be spent establishing and managing relationships. Supervisors must be willing to devote that time. Use of identification requires enactment of a variety of communication roles. And, due to the nature of relational development, it is more likely that greater participation in information exchange, problem/solution identification, behavior regulation, and conflict management “functional” roles will occur. This strategy, in contrast to compliance, tends to emphasize person-related communication roles. Identification is as effective in regulating behavior as compliance. The strategy is different, but movement toward conformity is just as real. While external rules regulate production behaviors in compliance, internal relational norms regulate behaviors during identification. In many cases, these strategies are distinguishable by the nature and content of the regulated behaviors, and not always by the use of reward and punishment (McGregor, 1960). For example, what a person does overtly is concrete and observable – and, overt behavior can be governed by external reward and punishment. Likewise, motivations and intentions, i.e., internal conditions, can induce psychologically rewarding and punishing outcomes. Berschied and Walster used reward-punishment concepts to address properties of liking relationships. They indicated that the consequences of similar attitudes and proximity (propinquity) are psychologically rewarding or punishing and affect employee anxiety, stress, loneliness, and belongingness. It is important to note, however, that these are abstract, psychological characteristics of people. 7-15

Internalization. Internalization uses assimilated experiences to regulate behavior. That is, people maintain or change behaviors because it makes “sense” to behave in those ways. For example, employees may change behaviors because they have had similar experiences as the manager who wishes a change. Or, they may refuse to change because their experiences are too different. Participative management (see chapter 4) is often used to facilitate internalization. Essentially, collaborative efforts reduce differences and increase similarities among participants. This strategy assimilates experiences and shapes the environment through “sharing” processes. When teams share and create goals together, the goals are more easily internalized because members have an “investment” in the goal. Kelman’s list of internalization conditions and characteristics (see figure 7-6) is best identified as an “it makes sense” approach. The fundamental difference between this strategy and the previous two is that internalizations seeks to maximize the congruence between production and personal needs by shaping the environment and capitalizing upon assimilated experiences of employees – essentially, it represents an integrative perspective. Clearly, no organization attempts to regulate concrete behaviors and ignore abstract behaviors, or vice-versa. Although some organizations do place primary emphasis on one or the other (see, for example, the comparison of cultural differences on the Communication Design Matrix in chapter 3), the latter half of the 20th century exhibited evidence of approaches for placing high emphasis on both production and needs. The development of participative management and socio-technical designs (see chapter 4) are examples. The 1990s ushered an era of organizational teams that were trained to use collaborative decision-making tools. Organizations that use these, and similar sets of techniques, possess conditions most favorable for internalization. Thus, an internalization strategy is appropriate when production- and need-related behaviors are simultaneously targeted and when rationality – an integration of what one does with how one feels – is believed to be fundamental in regulation.

7-16

The effectiveness of internalization is based upon the assumption that behavior must be compatible with an individual’s values and experiences. Thus, if employees create goals and procedures for reaching those goals, the required behavior will likely be consistent with their internal experiences, attitudes, and beliefs. Furthermore, as behaviors are adopted and maintained, they become a part of that individual; they are assimilated and become the basis for rational, logical, future behaviors. In an important sense, people who have a long-time association with an organization have internalized the values, indeed the culture, of that organization. And, of course, they have contributed to and influenced the nature of the culture. A regulation strategy similar to internalization was explained in Blake and Mouton’s classic “Managerial Grid” (1964), where they described a “9,9 team management leader” as an ideal type where work accomplishment is from committed people and interdependence through a “common stake” in outcomes. For Blake and Mouton, the 9,9 leader exhibited high concern for people and high concern for production. Their work was also consistent with the landmark leadership studies conducted at Ohio State and Michigan Universities. The Ohio State studies found that effective leaders showed a high concern for both tasks and personnel (Stogdill, 1950). The Michigan research found that effective leaders tended to have supportive relationships and enhanced their follower’s self-esteem, used group supervision and decision-making, and set high performance goals (Vroom, 1976). Internalization requires the use of all communication roles: process, content, and functional. Internalization, then, uses role exchange or sharing and resides in quadrants 2 and 3 of the Communication Design Matrix. Communication role specialization is inappropriate with this strategy. Internalization is not with disadvantages. This approach takes time. Organizations requiring rapid decision-making – for example, stock brokerage firms – would find it difficult to rely on internalization. Similarly, when role specialization is required, internalization may be inappropriate.

7-17

Regulation Tactics Communication role enactments vary with each of the regulation strategies. Managers must evaluate communication readiness conditions of the organization and employee when selecting an approach. This evaluation is a general tactical consideration and requires an awareness of constraints on regulation. Constraints. Constraints fall into two general categories. These are properties of behavior and properties of people. Behavioral properties include level of abstraction, chronological location, dispositionality, and consequences. These properties have the following characteristics and inherent constraining properties: 1. Level of Abstraction. Concrete behaviors are more easily regulated than abstract behaviors. Within limits, certain production levels can be obtained through incentive programs such as piece rate rewards in manufacturing and incentives in sales. It is more difficult to regulate how people feel about their jobs or how much they like their boss or co-workers. As behaviors become more unclear (particularly in processes with multiple alternatives where decisions must be made at each step) and ambiguous, they become more difficult to regulate. 2. Chronological Location. The temporal (or chronological) focus of an employee toward life is a value that reflects whether priority is given to the past, present, or future. This focus is a crucial concern for management because time is a central feature of human experience. Past behaviors do not, of course, submit themselves to meaningful, direct regulation – one cannot change the past. Psychologically, however, an individual can change information regarding the past – our memory of previous behavior is susceptible to distortion. Pleasant behavioral outcomes are remembered, while unpleasant ones are often suppressed and distorted. In addition, individuals stereotype memories of the 7-18

past. Symbols play a role in regulating memories of past behavior and provide a focus on the present. Consequently, they influence future behaviors. Employees will vary in terms of temporal orientations. Some persons “live” in the past, preferring old ways of behaving, while others may be more present or future oriented. Variations in orientation are related to social class, anxiety level, social isolation, and age (Cummings & Renshaw, 1979; Rokeach & Bonier, 1960; Gorcyca, Kennan & Stich, 1979). 3. Dispositionality. Symbols can represent behaviors that are potential (dispositional) as well as those that are real (indicative). This allows planning to take place. For example, organizations don’t wish to experience a crisis, but they can plan for one with the dispositional characteristic of symbols. This symbol-using quality of humans facilitates adaptation to the environment. But, it must be remembered that while dispositional planning may occur, that will not automatically insure an “indicative” outcome. 4. Consequences. One consequence of behavior is that it is repeated when rewarded (Skinner, 1957). Thus, employees who behave in productive ways will maintain those productive behaviors if they are rewarded for doing so. However, consequences are more complex than simple repetition. For example, those who use symbols to reward and punish others must provide surveillance or monitoring in order to insure compliance. Regulation is also constrained by properties of people, or, specifically, psychological attributes of sources and receivers. Properties of significant concern include perceptions of expertise & validity, trust, apprehension, and involvement: 1. Expertise & validity. Perceptions of expertise influence the level of validity attributed to others’ behaviors. If there is attribution of high expertise, enactment of that behavior will be viewed as more valid than attributions of low expertise. Validity is determined by the level of specialized knowledge attributed to a

7-19

source. For example, see Figure 7 -2 and the related discussion of “bases of power and influence.” 2. Trust. Trust is fundamental to the sociality of information or the process of social perception. Human beings attribute inte nt to others. When a manager behaves in certain ways, an employee may validate the behavior due to perceived expertise, yet have serious doubts about the manager’s intent. Thus, trust becomes a constraint regardless of validity. That is why successful, practicing managers often emphasize that it is critical to develop a trust base first, because without trust all actions are suspect. 3. Apprehension. Even if validity and trust levels are high, some behaviors may induce apprehension. Apprehension exists when people are fearful, worried, or uncomfortable. For example, the American public has consistently rated public speaking as one of their greatest fears. It is not uncommon for managers to avoid public speaking circumstances because of fear, even though they recognize the need exists from time to time. Apprehension can become so severe that there are serious psychological and physiological consequences. 4. Involvement. Work involvement is an important consideration for job design and employee placement. However, there is no assurance of involvement even if employees are comfortable, skilled, and have little or no apprehension. For example, boredom occurs when highly trained employees are underutilized (and, this is often joined with frustration). When work behaviors are consistent with satisfaction of personal needs, people develop high levels of involvement. Principles. No single strategy is best; you will undoubtedly need to use all three at various times and under certain conditions (as the discussion of constraints implies). In addition, certain parts of an organization may require different strategies. For example, it would seem ridiculous for a hospital administrator to use compliance to regulate attending physicians' beside manners – identification or internalization would make more sense. However, compliance would be appropriate for regulating 7-20

sterilization prior to entering the operating room. Based on traditions in previous research and discussion in this chapter, the following principles are recommended: Principle 1: Precisely define the behavior to be regulated. This includes considering the dimensions: production vs. need, maintenance vs. adoption, internal vs. external. Then apply information management principles discussed in chapter 5. Principle 2: Be consistent. Regulation becomes increasingly difficult when policies are perceived as contradictory, or when one rule rewards a behavior and another rewards an opposing behavior. For example, when incentives are based on individual performance but collaboration is required, employees will experience confusion in selecting from behavioral alternatives (see Kerr’s famous article – “On the Folly of Rewarding A While Hoping for B” in the Academy of Management Journal, vol. 18, 1975, pp. 769-783). This circumstance happens often on university campuses when faculty is urged to do collaborative research, but receive a greater reward for publishing “solo” research. Principle 3: Organize behaviors for ease of comprehension. Behaviors have meaning, particularly with respect to organizational goals. Isolated, random behaviors make little sense to naïve observers, regardless of how well each specific behavior is defined. Behaviors, like information, must be chunked (or organized) and clearly directed toward the attainment of a specific outcome, either production- or need-related. For example, industrial engineers spend a great deal of time determining the best way to illustrate, i.e., communicate, proper methods for operating equipment; technical communicators’ primary responsibility is to write manuals (and, organize the information, therein) that regulate or describe the proper methods for successfully completing specific processes (from using software to putting furniture together to operating a bulldozer, etc.). Appropriate organization is a function of task requirements and

7-21

employee characteristics. In other words, careful “audience” or target analysis is critical. Principle 4: Do not over-regulate behavior. Managers should manage knowing that it is impossible to regulate all employee behaviors. Only critical behaviors are worthy of regulatory attention. Most persons have observed parents regulating their children’s behaviors: “stand up straight, be quiet; keep your elbows off the table; chew your food!” Supervisors of transmit similar regulations to subordinates. Employees are reminded to perform activities, even when those activities are consistently enacted. Some organizations attempt to regulate a person’s social life, even when those activities have no bearing on organizational outcomes. These include things like standards of appearance, country club memberships, coercion to contribute to community charities, and required attendance at special events. Such types of over-regulation often produce defensive climates. Principle 5: Maintain constructive levels of personal and socio-emotional behaviors. No organization can afford to ignore employee needs, even if compliance is the most appropriate behavior regulation strategy. Failure to consider personal needs will result in lowered satisfaction levels. And, dissatisfied employees will seek work elsewhere. The consequence is increased recruiting and training costs. Because it is a conscious act of influencing others, behavior regulation portends s moral and ethical questions. Although the exercise of power is neither inherently good nor evil, the potential for either exists. Those using regulation for social, organizational, and individual well being develop strategy from a position quite different from those only concerned with self-preservation. Thus, managers must consider the ethical responsibilities associated with their legitimate, formal status and roles.

7-22