Evaluation of the Impact of Line Managers on Organizational Performance - Assignment Example

? Evaluation of the impact of line managers on organizational performance inserts his/her s name Department’s name Date Contents Contents 2 Introduction 3 Introduction The role of line managers in enhancing staff performance has been unquestioningly highlighted as crucial as they are the ones who ensure execution and implementation of the HR strategies at the ground level. It is, therefore, important to understand how the line managers are influenced by the organizational culture in their capacity to ensure adequate staff performance and how they (the line managers) in turn influence the same. The line manager The line manager has been typically defined as the functional manager or supervisors to whom the employees report directly (as opposed to indirect managers). As they are responsible for ensuring the operation of employees and monitor their performance on a day-to-day basis, their role in influencing staff performance is crucial. Researchers have highlighted the role played by line managers in producing an integrated culture of managing employees via line management while others have demonstrated the role that line managers play in increasing employee commitment, thereby leading to rise in productivity. The psychological contract between the employee and line manager is claimed to be the lens through which workers view the entire workplace. Organizational Culture and the line manager Organizational culture is said to have a significant impact on the way in which the organization, including line managers function. It includes beliefs values and behavioral patterns that form the foundations of organizations. The power of organizational culture in influencing line managers’ communication and leadership style cannot be negated. If the culture is open and encourages freedom of speech, the line managers will be inclined towards adopting a participative management style whereby employees’ views are incorporated during decision making. Under such an environment, tasks are delegated and the worker has the flexibility to accomplish tasks without being closely monitored. On the other hand, cultures where deference to authority and bureaucracy prevail tend to produce line managers which do not favor employee participation, are wary of employees’ intention to work and lack the trust necessary for successful delegation. An extreme form of such management prevails in the form of micromanagers which are typically found at lower levels of organizational hierarchy. Such managers often fall into the trap of over-scrutinizing employees’ work and adopting the “my way or the highway” philosophy (Chambers, 2005). It is no surprise that under such organizations communication is often top-down and line managers expect submissive behavior from employees who, in turn, seek to “please the boss” in every way possible (Chambers, 2005). The impact of both these styles on employee motivation and commitment is profound and shall be explored in depth later. However, it is important to note that a two-way relationship exists between line managers and organizational culture. The role of line managers is crucial in order to make any organizational culture functional. If the culture is directed towards the achievement of incorrect objectives then it can become largely dysfunctional. The management’s role is critical in that it determines whether the cultural orientation needs to be adapted to internal policies or individuals in the organization. This, in turn, determines and develops a dominant leadership style which results in a mutual relationship between the organization’s culture, efficiency and leadership styles. For instance, in a study conducted on over 32 large corporations in Croatia (from the manufacturing, service and financial sector), the organizational culture was resistant to change and preferred the status quo which resulted in slow development of an entrepreneurial leadership orientation amongst managers (Buble, 2012). Complementing this organizational culture was the practice of paying little attention to the human needs of employees along with bureaucracy and high level of centralization. In another case, line managers in the form of team leaders were re-recruited on the basis of the behavior, body language, communication and interpersonal skills as well as relationship building attitude which was in line with the organization’s policy of hiring on the basis of “attitude” and not just skills (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Hence, the type of line managers hired greatly reflects the company culture. The above view of the two-way relationship between organizational culture and functional leadership has been supported by Fairholm who argues that cultural norms determine how the corporation defines the role of line managers including their promotion. On the other hand, line managers’ interaction with organizational culture tells them the agenda they should focus on, how they ought to react to employee behavior and what has to be communicated to subordinates. Therefore, line managers uniquely possess the talent of defining and managing organizational culture and then destroying it when it becomes dysfunctional. Additionally, line managers have some degree of discretionary power that enables them to work beyond contract. For instance, line managers who demonstrate enthusiasm while performing interviews of performance appraisal will reciprocate this behavior from their subordinates which goes beyond contractual terms. Such managers engage in “enacting” by implicitly offering coaching and support and team building activities to employees (Purcell, 2003). Typically, these managers respond to employees’ suggestions, ensure fair treatment and manage operational issues on a day-to-day basis. Most of the time these activities are not captured in any policy; hence, these are at the discretion of the line manager (Purcell, 2003). Value-driven corporations often encourage such behavior as opposed to bureaucratic ones. As team leaders, line managers offer control mechanisms for checking employee absenteeism, punctuality and quality problems. Research conducted on the Royal Hospital at Bath shows that employee satisfaction is greatly enhanced by line managers who are considered approachable and communicative in informal settings and offer the right skills during feedback (Purcell, 2003). In Selfridges (a retail chain), the crucial role of line managers as team leaders was highlighted with greatest employee satisfaction resting with the respect demonstrated by line managers and the career opportunities they provide (Purcell, 2003). Research at Tesco demonstrates that, while organizational culture in the form of routines and procedures are critical in providing structure and focus to the corporation, it is the way that managers implement these that makes them effective (Purcell, 2003). It has been contended by theorists that what may appear as one-on-one attention to some subordinates may be considered as a paternalistic or interfering leadership style by others (Hartog et al., 1997). This perception largely depends on the culture and work environment prevalent in the corporation. For instance, if an employee is part of a rigid, controlled environment a friendly gesture by the line manager may be interpreted favorably by the employee as a sign of individual consideration (Hartog et al., 1997). On the other hand, employees who have been working in employee-centric organizations will have a higher standard/threshold for what constitutes as individual attention (Hartog et al., 1997). Hence, the employee’s prior experience with the beliefs, values and norms embedded in organizational culture affects his/her interpretation of the line manager’s behavior. Additionally, the leadership and decision patterns of the leader have been classified as cultural artifacts by researchers. According to them, the style of leadership adopted by the line manager and the leader’s practices are determined by the organizational culture rather than the managers themselves (Hartog et al., 1997). Therefore, organizational culture is directly related with leadership effectiveness. This means that line managers in organizations marked by openness to change, participation and risk taking will display better performance than those in other firms. Employee participation, organizational commitment and line managers Despite the growing focus on telecommuting and working from home along with use of voicemail, electronic mail and videoconferencing, the face-to-face interaction between line managers and employees remains crucial. The importance of communication between line managers and employees has been demonstrated by the fact that managers ought to communicate job responsibilities, vision and mission, provide performance feedback, cater to employees’ needs, keep track of the unit/department’s results and empower employees. Organizational commitment and job satisfaction are stated to be important factors in the determination of organizational performance. Organizational commitment has been defined as the internalization or acceptance of the company’s goals and values which results in the development of a perception of commitment of individual employees to the company (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Close relationship between the line managers and employees is necessary to enhance employee commitment. It has been discovered that line managers have a greater effect on employee commitment than do transformational leaders. Furthermore, human oriented leadership styles (that encourage participation and empowerment) are more suited in situations where subordinates are well educated and have vast work experience. Most line managers, however, tend to be result-driven and focus on rapid results to achieve the set targets. In such cases, employee commitment and contribution to the set targets can only be achieved through timely communication. In other words, employees must be informed beforehand if the manager expects rapid performance in certain areas. Furthermore, some employees argue that line managers are often not involved enough to see through the problems on the factory floor. Furthermore, line managers play a powerful role is upholding the cultural values of an organization. Employee commitment is enhanced when line managers clearly direct the subordinates towards the company’s vision. In other words, departmental goals and organizational goals must be aligned to avoid ambiguity and ensure no conflict of interests arises. Workers who are forced into achieving certain goals (by line managers) that are not in the best interests of the company may experience frustration leading to lower job satisfaction. Organizations today operate in a challenging environment where there are constant pressures to restructure, reengineer and downsize. The wave of globalization has made cost control, efficiency and effective customer response increasingly important, thus making the work atmosphere sophisticated and complex. Hence, the need for line managers to foster and maintain employee commitment and satisfaction has become critical (Earle, 1996). Owing to turbulence in the external environment along with unpredictable changes, there is increasing pressure on line managers to adopt leadership style that is flexible. The manager’s style must be tailored in particular to the level of employees’ commitment. A study conducted on three companies in China revealed low levels of employee commitment following organizational reengineering (Home et al., 2002). This was because employees were not willing to accept the company’s policies related to them. This implies that employees were unable to decipher the rationale behind the decisions or the significance of those decisions. For instance, the company’s need to survive amidst cut-throat competition was not appropriately addressed. This required line managers to take on transformational roles so that employees respect, admire, trust and feel loyal to them (Home et al., 2002). This will lead the employees to feel motivated into putting that extra effort required during the change process. In other words, line managers cannot restrict themselves today by merely allocating resources and delegating tasks- they must go beyond this boundary and be able to inspire employees. Line managers often aim at targets such as reduction of customer complaints, reduction of costs, reducing lead times and processing times amongst others. Most line managers have short-term objectives to be achieved such as meeting a production schedule on the factory floor. However, they may also have longer term goals such as incorporating cost-reduction methods. These goals may conflict; for instance, achieving greater output with fewer defects and at lower cost. This objective will typically require workers to put in extra effort and more flexibility while having no rise in their wages and no overtime (to keep costs low) (Martin, 2009). This would certainly give birth to conflict as these terms would be unacceptable to most employees. These conditions force line managers to resort to quick fixes that often go against the procedural policies set by HR (Martin, 2009). The suggestion to incorporate high performance working would not be met with favorably by line managers specifically since line managers perceive themselves as “closer to the issue” and HR managers as inexperienced. Theoretical policies, therefore, do not work for line managers who want practical solutions (Martin, 2009). Furthermore, Liden et.al contend that the role of line managers in enabling the socialization of employees by casting them into group cultures, introducing them to associates within the confines of their social network and helping them perceive the cultural norms of the organization (Liden et al., 2004). In addition to the usage of formal mechanisms to encourage consultation, line managers may opt to seek employees’ views on the introduction of new practices in informal settings such as during lunch breaks or even outside the organization. Since line managers and employees can directly control the agenda of such informal discussions by addressing the immediate concerns of the team, they are more effective than formal sessions (Liden et al., 2004). However, line managers do not engage with the same relationship with all employees working under them. The leader-member exchange theory, in particular, delineates on the varying relationships that line managers engage in with different subordinates. Employees who share similar age, personality or gender with the line manager or demonstrate exceptional performance constitute what is known as the “in-group” whereas other employees constitute the “out-group” (Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). In-group employees get greater valued resources, favorable work schedules, counseling and the allocation of important tasks from their line manager. Consequently, in-group members display higher job satisfaction and better job performance than their out-group counterparts (Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). From the above analysis it is clear that effective line managers are an important link in the employee satisfaction and performance. The delegation of important tasks, consultation, counseling and effective off-the-job communication by line managers enhance employee motivation and commitment, which in turn, enable them to form favorable image of organizational culture, thereby positively affecting their performance. Social exchange occurs whereby attitudes of line managers reflect Perceived Organizational Support (POS) which are then reciprocated in the behavior of employees (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Conclusion To conclude, line managers develop and deliver impressions of the firm as a whole thereby making jobs motivating and satisfying by influencing the job’s expectations and the sense of autonomy and achievement granted to the employee. In the light of changing demands pertaining to cost control, customer service and increased competition, line managers play a critical role in influencing whether and when workers meet their targets along with the level of absenteeism, turnover and satisfaction that workers demonstrate. This of course, is impossible without a supportive organizational culture that has values and policies that are user-friendly (for line managers to execute). References Buble, M., 2012. INTERDEPENDENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP STYLES IN LARGE FIRMS. Journal Of Contemporary Management Issues, 17(2), pp.85-97. Chambers, H., 2005. Surviving the Micromanager. How to succeed with a my way boss.. Canadian Manager, 30(2), pp.24-25. Earle, V., 1996. Motivational leadership. Executive Excellence, 13, pp.16-17. Hartog, D.N., Muijen, J.J. & Koopman, P.L., 1997. Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 70(1), pp.19-34. Home, E., J.A.M. & Home, H., 2002. An Examination of the Relationship Between Leadership Behavior and Organizational Commitment at Steel Companies. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship. Liden, R., Bauer, T. & Erdogan, B., 2004. The role of leader-member exchange in the dynamic relationship between employer and employee: implications for employee socialization, leaders, and organizations. In The Employment Relationship: examining psychological and contextual perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Martin, J., 2009. Human Resource Management. London: Sage Publications. Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J., 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), pp.61-89. Purcell, J., 2003. Understanding the People and Performance Link: Unlocking the Black Box. Research Report. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Purcell, J. & Hutchinson, S., 2007. Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), p.3–20. Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. & Scandura, L., 2000. Indicators of leader–member exchange(LMX) for strategic human resource management systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, p.137–185. Read More