- There are different stages of subordinates' responses in
reaction to change in an organization. How do you think an effective
leader should deal with each of these different stages?
Yukl states that there are four stages of typical reaction to sudden change; “The reaction pattern has four stages: denial, anger, mourning, and adaptation” (2012, p.80). It is important to note that this pattern is similar to grief patterns, and that there are several additional reasons for employee resistance to change that Yukl also lists; “Proposed Change Is Not Necessary”, “Proposed Change Is Not Feasible”, “Change Is Not Cost Effective”, “Change Would Cause Personal Losses”, “Proposed Change Is Inconsistent With Values”, and “Leaders Not Trusted”(2012, pp. 81,82). A leader should recognize the source of resistance before attempting to use a “grief” specific approach; to help “overcome denial, channel their anger constructively, mourn without becoming severely depressed, and have optimism about adjusting successfully”(Yukl, 2012, p.80).
- What are the three main differences in the primary and
secondary ways in which a leader can influence organizational
culture? Please provide reasons for your choice.
Schein establishes a categorization of cultural change mechanisms: the primary mechanisms are attention, reactions to crisis, role modeling, allocations of rewards, and criterion for selection or dismissal within the organization. The secondary mechanisms are design of organizational structure, design of systems and procedures, design of facilities, “stories, legends and myths”, and formal statements (Zarafshan, n.d). The first difference is that primary mechanism can be described as “Embedding Mechanisms” while secondary mechanisms can be described as “Reinforcing mechanisms” (Nellen, 1997, para. 30). A secondary differences is that the primary mechanisms operate on a personal or dyadic basis, while secondary mechanisms work on a group level. Nellen differentiates between the mechanisms:”Primary mechanisms used to embed in ongoing manner. Secondary more subtle, more ambiguous, more difficult to control, yet can be powerful reinforcements of primary”. Nellen also asserts that secondary mechanisms are used to culturize “newcomers” (1997, para. 44).
- How can a leader in a criminal-justice agency develop a
vision for change? Formulate brief guidelines for developing a
vision and implementing that change.
A criminal justice leader must, before any other consideration, remember the parameters of law that they operate under. Secondly, they must offer a realistic vision considering the resources they are allocated. A leader must scan and analyze not just the most pressing needs of the community but anticipate likely problems of the future. Taking all those factors into consideration, the leader must consider the capabilities and needs of the people in his organization. To complete his vision, he must bring all these elements in balance while providing for mechanisms of adaptation. Finally, the leader must be able to communicate his vision clearly to the stakeholders and to the organization.
- Criminal-justice agencies follow procedures rigidly. How can
you turn these agencies into organizations that adapt and learn in a
dynamic environment so that they can perform with greater
efficiency?
I return to the consideration that criminal justice agencies are bound by law; due to this, they are less adaptable to fluid organizational changes. Other factors that inhibit CJ agencies from rapid change are a lack of resources (not only to do their day to day function, but to plan and implement change) and political influence on the agency's operations. Finally, criminal justice agencies are staffed by conservative cultures; this isn't in reference to the political label of culture, but rather to the stakes on the table when these organizations make mistakes – people die, officers go to jail, taxpayers pay the brunt of lawsuits. Since these stakes are high, CJ personnel are resistant to change that isn't “proven”.
To counter these issues, CJ leaders that wish to implement change must themselves be adaptable to using a wide array of leadership techniques and to forging personal relationships amongst all stakeholder groups as well.
- Beliefs about necessity and feasibility of change – followers will feasibility of change over necessity; there is no point in making a change if the change will not correct the issue.
- Economic threats and loss of power – for most followers, economic threats will trump loss of power. Children tend to cry and make lots of noise when they are starving. However, a certain percentage of people will prefer to advance themselves at any cost.
- Resentment and threats to values – threats to values pose a
major threat to the morale of followers, and this consideration is
probably the strongest factor to employee resistance after economic
threat.
Nellen, T. (1997). Organizational
Culture & Leadership. Tnellen.com. Retrieved December 2, 2012
from http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/schein.html
Zarafshan, A. (n.d.). Schein's
leadership culture-change actions. Changing Minds. Retrieved December
2, 2012 from
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/actions/schein_culture.htm
Yukl,
G. A. (2012). Leadership in Organizations, 8th Edition. [VitalSource
Bookshelf version]. Retrieved November 27, 2014 from
http://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/books/9781256650225
- Self-managed
and functional teams
- Cross-functional
and virtual teams
In
contrast, “In a functional operating team, the members are likely
to have jobs that are somewhat specialized but still part of the same
basic function ...There is usually an appointed leader who has
considerable authority for internal operations and managing external
relationships with other parts of the organization” (Yukl, 2012,
p.254).
Virtual
teams are similar in operation to self-managed teams; “a
collection of individuals who are dispersed (geographically,
organizationally, or otherwise), and who collaborate using
information technology in order to accomplish
a specific goal” (Carte, Chidambaram, & Becker, 2006, p. 324).
Carte et al further describe leadership roles in such teams; “Recent
work on virtual teams suggests that leadership, in this electronic
context, might be better viewed as a collective effort
distributed among team members characterized by
the sharing and rotating of leadership roles” (2006, p. 323)Cross-functional teams have a similar goal formation purpose to virtual teams, in that they “often draw their members from across disciplines, professions, and functional units, so that their expertise can be applied” (Slepian, 2013, p. 1350005-3), and are limited to a specific goal.
Finally, although teams can play important parts in a leader's arsenal, we need to remember that “teamwork is not a virtue in itself. It is merely a strategic choice” (Lencioni, 2003, p.35).
In the criminal justice organizational environment, discuss whether collective efficacy of the group and mutual trust in the team are more important than individual skills while determining team performance. Support your response with suitable examples.
- Discuss
whether collective efficacy of the group and mutual trust in the
team are more important than individual skills while determining
team performance. Support your response with suitable examples.
- Does role clarity for each team member influence his or
her cooperation and coordination within the team? How? What possible
hurdles might be encountered if there are overlapping roles or
confusion about individual roles?
- Which are the three most important determinants of group
processes that affect decision making in groups within criminal
justice agencies? Provide a rationale and examples for your choices.
The
issue of whether trust between members of a team is more important
than skill depends on variables such as levels of trust and skill.
If a team member can not conduct a job function, then there is no
reason to trust him to begin with. However, if a team member has
great skills, but has not built the trust amongst his team to assign
him the task, his skill is likewise of no use. If the collective
efficiency of the team and mutual trust within the team are great
enough, however, then that would be more important than the
individual skills of a single team member.
The
understanding of one's role on a team not only influences his
cooperation and coordination on a team, it determines those effects.
The larger the team, or the scope of the operation, the more affect
this role clarity has. On a small scale, if a policeman fails to
clear a room that is his responsibility properly, he is placing other
members of his team in danger. If he doesn't get his paperwork
completed in due time, he may fail to provide the legal support
another policeman may need in the courtroom. On a larger scale, such
as in a task force, a role member may take an action that subverts
the entire enterprise; a local policeman may arrest an informant
that was supposed to clear the crime scene. In these cases, the team
member that does not understand the responsibilities of his assigned
role puts the task goal at risk of failure. Overlapping roles, such
as jurisdictional conflicts or multi-agency task forces in which role
responsibilities aren't mapped out, also interfere with role clarity,
team coordination, and team cooperation in the same manner.
Yukl
states that there are many factors that can have negative effects on
group processes that affect decision
making. These factors include such things as “contribution
of information and ideas by group members, the clarity of
communication, the accuracy of prediction and judgments, the extent
to which the discussion is focused on the problem, and the manner in
which disagreement is resolved. Common process problems that reduce
decision quality include member inhibition, groupthink, false
consensus, hasty decisions, polarization, and lack of action planning
for implementation”(2012, p. 267). The three most important of
these factors would be quality of information, lack of action
planning, and groupthink. One of the greatest failures of LE
decision-making can be seen in the Koresh/Waco confrontation. The
decision to send agents up to the front door, only carrying pistols,
for a PR op instead of a safe arrest had the consequence of a siege
and a litter of dead bodies. The group decision-making lacked the
information that the cultists were well armed and preparing for a
“final battle” (Edwards, 2001, p. 347), or perhaps ignored it due
to groupthink. The lack of action planning can be seen in the
confused response; did NONE of the planners anticipate armed
resistance? Edwards contends that the planners of the operation
suffered “organizational surprise” and refused “expert
advice”(2001). It would seem that the determinants of successful
group decision processing is avoiding such pitfalls.
Edwards, J. C. (2001). Self-fulfilling prophecy and escalating commitment. fuel for the waco fire. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(3), 343-360. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886301373006
Erez, A., Lepine, J. A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 929-948. Retrieved December 3, 2014 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/220141772?accountid=87314
Lencioni, P. M. (2003). The trouble with teamwork. Leader to Leader, 2003(29), 35. Retrieved December 3, 2014 from http://search.proquest.com/docview/218311851?accountid=87314
Slepian, J. L. (2013). Cross-functional teams and organizational learning: A model and cases from telecommunications operating companies. International Journal Of Innovation & Technology Management, 10(1), -1. doi:10.1142/S0219877013500053
Yukl,
G. A. (2012). Leadership in Organizations, 8th Edition. [VitalSource
Bookshelf version]. Retrieved December 3, 2014 from
http://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/books/9781256650225
No comments:
Post a Comment