Employee Relations: Survey

Many companies fail to properly account for the social relationships that form in the workplace as well as to account for the fact that these social relationships directly affect the performance and the psychological health of their employees which ultimately affects the performance of the company as a whole.

So, does your company take social relationships at work into account?

Please take 30 seconds to answer 5 multiple choice questions. We will post the results to this blog as well as e-mail them to those who would like them.

Click the Start Button to Take this Survey

Or just click here

Social Interactions at work and Psychological Health: The Role of Leader – Member Exchange and Work Group Integration

July 2008 in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

Why should HR take an interest in the social interactions taking place at work?

The study found that stressors at work can be managed effectively by Social Resources in the work place. The availability of these social resources is determined by the quality of the relationships between an individual and their immediate superiors as well as co-workers.There are 2 main social relationships that exist at work. The first is the individual with his or her superior and the second is the individual with his or her co-workers.The first is called Leader Member Exchange (LMX)
The second is called Work Group Integration (WGI): This is the “perceived approval from coworkers and inclusion in their activities which can be a source of social support and assistance.

High WGI results in the following:

• a feeling of emotional support
• a sense of belonging
• a sense that others will help if needed
• a recognition of self-worth and value
• a high degree of stability in one's life situation

The extent to which a leader provides a psychologically secure environment, the resources necessary for workers to complete tasks and the authority for workers to make decisions, regulates how likely subordinates are to think of a situation as being under control and non-threatening. If a leader fails to foster a strong LMX, the result will be a feeling of isolation and a perceived lack of control in the subordinates.

The study proved the following:

• Low LMX = High stress, low organizational commitment, low job satisfaction
• High LMX = Low stress, high organizational commitment, high job satisfaction
• Low WGI = High stress, low organizational commitment, low job satisfaction
• High WGI = Low stress, high organizational commitment, high job satisfaction

Many companies fail to properly account for the social relationships that form in the workplace as well as to account for the fact that these social relationships directly affect the performance and the psychological health of their employees which ultimately affects the performance of the company as a whole.

Does your company take social relationships at work into account?
Please take 30 seconds to answer 5 quick questions. We will post the results to this blog as well as e-mail them to those who would like them.

Take this quick survey here

Article:
Rousseau ET AL. Social Interactions at Work and Psychological Health: The Role of Leader Member Exchange and Work Group Integration. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. July 2008, Vol. 38., Issue 7, p.1755-1777.

Trait-Based Leadership VS. Situation-Based Leadership (Part 3 of 3)

The problem that such a conception of leadership comes up against is that the five “traits” outlined above are vague enough to be mapped onto almost any historical “Leader” while at the same time too vague to be taken into a board room. It is one thing to say that a leader must pursue their purpose with passion and quite another thing to somehow convince a room full of people that it is in their best interest, as well as in the company’s best interest, to pursue one man’s purpose with passion. However, it may seem a bit presumptuous to simply claim that the five “traits” that we have just mentioned are, in fact, not necessary for a good leader, for, as history has shown us, most every great “leader” that comes to mind has exemplified a few, if not all of these “traits”. How then to we reconcile these opposing claims: that leadership is situation based and that leadership is trait based.

Well, what it seems to really come down to is that in order to be a successful leader, one must somehow synthesize these competing views of leadership. That is, a good leader must survey a situation and come to an understanding of the unique situational factors that form it. Once one has assessed the situational factors that determine any given context, it becomes possible to employ the “traits” necessary to earn the trust and commitment of the individuals involved in a particular situation. In other words, being able to accurately identify the situational factors present in any given context gives a leader insight into how best to approach a problem. So, for example, when a situation involves a group of people, being able to seamlessly integrate oneself into the group’s identity is of absolute importance. Once, this is accomplished, it is far easier to get the commitment of the group and so to exercise any number of “traits”, be it pursuing the group’s purpose with passion or practicing solid values. Nevertheless, whatever the situation may be, a person with a set stock of “leadership traits” will not be the least bit affective if he or she does not correctly identify the situational factors that undergird every situation.

Bottom line: if you can correctly identify the situational factors in any situation, then learning what the correct action to take in such a situation is no different that learning a new skill. That’s not to say that a little charisma and self-discipline won’t prove useful either.

Trait-Based Leadership VS. Situation-Based Leadership (Part 2 of 3)

In a paper titled “The New Psychology of Leadership”, authors Stephen Reicher, Alexander Haslam, and Michael Platow, attempt to explain why what we commonly think of as effective leadership is, in fact, the result of something more akin to a situation-based theory of leadership.

In the 1960’s and 1970’s scholars began to embrace the idea that, what we have referred to as the “Born Leader” is nothing more than a myth. Rather, “scholars began to favor ‘contingency models,’ which focus on the context in which leaders operate.” (Reicher 2) In their paper, Stephen Reicher, Alexander Haslam and Michael Platow, explain that, since the research of Henri Tajfel and John C. Turner in the 1970’s, which subsequently led to Tajfel’s coining of the term “social identity”, leadership theories have begun to focus more on the “Leader’s” ability to induce followers to see themselves as part of a group, to embrace a kind of social identity that is akin not only to the other group members conception of self but also to the business’s identity as a whole. In other words, “[s]ocial identities make group behavior possible: they enable us to reach consensus on what matters to us, to coordinate our actions with others and to strive for shared goals.” (Reicher 3)

Given that group behavior hinges on social identities, the task of a good leader is to identify with that social identity, “rather than assuming absolute authority”, and our leader does this by coming to “understand the values and opinions of [his or her] followers” which, in turn, enables “a productive dialogue with [subordinates] about what the group embodies and stands for and thus how it should act.” (Reicher 1) In this sense, it seems as though it is not necessary for a good leader to possess a fixed set of traits given that “the most desirable traits depend on the nature of the group being led.” (Reicher 2) In other words, what is necessary for an individual to be a strong leader is dependant entirely on the situation.

While “The New Psychology of Leadership” focuses specifically on a leader’s ability to become “one of the gang” it does emphasize the necessity for a very definite shift from “Charisma to Consensus”, from a stock set of “Leadership traits” to a sensitivity for the situational factors necessary for the formation of a strong group identity.

Yet there are many that still believe that leadership is defined by how well an individual demonstrates any number of “traits”. For example, last year, in his short op-ed piece in U.S. News and World Report, Bill George claimed that there are, in fact, five “traits” that identify an “authentic leader”. Those “traits”, according to George, are as follows:

• Pursuing their purpose with passion.
• Practicing solid values.
• Leading with their heart as well as their head.
• Establishing connected relationships.
• Demonstrating self-discipline.

Bill George goes on to clarify that “[t]o be effective leaders of people, authentic leaders must first discover the purpose of their leadership. If they don’t, they are at the mercy of their egos and narcissistic impulses… The values of authentic leaders are shaped by their personal beliefs and developed through introspection, consultation with others, and years of experience.” (George 1)

To Be Continued...