Informal Leadership, Strategy and Organizational Change

The Power of Silent Authority

Brenetia J. Adams-Robinson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000547573
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Management
• Index: Business

Across the spectrum of organizational operations, workplace interactions have proven to be one of the most difficult activities for leaders to manage effectively, especially during any level of change. In these circumstances, leadership strategies, especially related to change and leadership transition, consistently fail at an alarming rate. Additionally, employee engagement and team collaboration continue to be among the most elusive concepts for those in leadership to master.

This book explores the influence of the informal leader on team member engagement during major change initiative in the organizational paradigm, with a special emphasis on leaders who are new to the team composite. This book examines the role of the informal leader in promoting or hindering team member engagement and organizational citizenship behaviors in change dynamics with a focus on change in the leadership structure and major initiatives. The relationship between the formal and informal leader is explored to assess impact on team interactions and capacity to effectively execute change strategies.

This book provides critical information to aid in organizations achieving long-term success and will be of interest to researchers, academics, and students in the fields of leadership, organizational studies, strategy, and human resource management.

1 The Historical Groundwork

DOI: 10.4324/9780429319969-2

Although the concept and detailed study of informal leadership is a relatively new area of organizational development concentration, the concept of general leadership in the workplace has been intensively studied for over a century. A historic assessment of the development of leadership theory is critical in understanding how the concept of management and leadership has developed through the years (Badshah, 2012). This is an especially important point of understanding during times of change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Theories have ranged from a complete focus on production and bottom-line profitability and general managerial proficiency, to assuring a comprehensive emphasis on meeting the needs of the individual in the workplace to engage (Bligh, Kohles, & Pillai, 2011).

It is important to understand leadership acumen as it relates to motivating followers to engage to make strategic goals happen for organizational success. Most germinal research suggests that employees are motivated to follow those with whom they have a psychological connection and those they like and respect, termed the likeability factor (Stoltzfus, Stohl, & Seibold, 2011). The concept of leaders who empower employees to tap into their capacity to bring their best to the workplace is relatively new to the purview of leadership research. These leaders are perceived as having the capacity to sustain business viability while exhibiting vision, enthusiasm, motivation, and responsiveness to employee concerns to build a strong foundation of employee engagement that leads to stronger team cohesion and collaboration (Martinez, Kane, Ferris, & Brooks, 2012).

Taylor’s Scientific Management Theory

Understanding the influence of various leadership theories is essential to comprehending how a leader’s influence can maximize organizational effectiveness through human capital engagement. This is an especially important point of understanding during times of organizational or leadership change. Thoughts and conceptual ideas concerning the influence of leadership and interpersonal relationships on employee workplace behavior date back to the 1500s (Badshah, 2012; Landis, Hill, & Harvey, 2014). However, structured leadership research began with the work of Frederick Taylor, a mechanical engineer, who sought to apply a scientific approach to maximizing job performance in the early 1900s (Chung, 2013). Known as the Father of Scientific Management, he has been deemed to be one of the first and most prolific management consultants in studying how to maximize job performance in the workplace.

The goal of his concept of scientific management approach was to find the most systematic strategy to perform workplace tasks as efficiently as possible (Chung, 2013; Landis et al., 2014). Disappointed with the level of productivity he observed in the plant where he worked, he was convinced that there was “one best way” to perform the work to improve productivity. Believing that just making people work harder was not the best work strategy, he studied the way individual workers performed each task and how the equipment was being used. In the studies, he and his colleagues initiated efforts to understand how a worker’s productivity might be improved by systemic work processes and workplace interactions. They addressed such concepts as worker skill levels, workplace motivation, employee needs versus wants, and intrinsic versus extrinsic rewards.

In his 1909 published work, The Principles of Scientific Management, Taylor suggested that by simplifying job design and expectations, productivity would be increased (Chung, 2013; Badshah, 2012). He was a proponent that in all processes there is a one best way to accomplish each task, and it is the responsibility of leadership to identify that process. He also promoted that managers and employees should cooperate in determining the best way to accomplish the task and to reach expected levels of performance. Through these studies, Taylor assessed that successful managers must be able to work with and motivate employees to achieve organizational goals. This was a monumental finding since prior to these studies managers in a plant environment seldom spoke to or interacted with workers.

He further postured that to maximize efficiencies, work must have a clear division of responsibilities, which should be clearly communicated to workers (Chung, 2013; Landis et al., 2014). He suggested that the organization should offer incentives to show employee appreciation for work effort to include providing higher compensation to more successful performers. In encouraging workers to provide input in work processes, he emphasized the need for hierarchy of authority, with the need for managerial oversight to ensure work expectations were met (Badshah, 2012). His work acknowledged that there are gaps between where an organization currently operated and where they wanted to be. That gap is what makes the concept of leadership so difficult.

Follett’s Management Theory

One theorist, Mary Parker Follett, provided a strong foundation of research to begin the journey of filling in the gaps. Follett was an American social worker, management theorist, and philosopher in the fields of organizational behavior and group interactions in the workplace (Bathurst & Monin, 2010; Boje & Rosile, 2001). She combined her education in economics, government, law, and philosophy to focus on education, community activism, and human interactions in the public school systems. In her observations of community interactions in school systems, she conceptualized that through community interactions, members could unite to address civic indifference, promote harmony among diverse cultural groups, and create a local framework for integrating different community organizations.

In her 1918 work, The New State, Follett defined democracy as a process of subsisting and surviving in a social arena and not just a set of political activities, suggesting that interactions within the community provided the key to equity and engagement for community members (Follett Parker, 1918; Tonn, 2003). She suggested that individuals within a community are products of the social processes in which they exist and are continually nourished by interactions within those processes (Boje & Rosile, 2001). This revelation eventually led to her applying the concept to the workplace, assessing that the workplace was also community of social interactions.

Her book identified a number of explanations for her argument but specifically defined elements as applied to workplace interactions (Boje & Rosile, 2001; Tonn, 2003). She suggested that the determinations and strength of a group are not disconnected processes among its members but are the collective expression of desires of individuals within the group. In essence, whatever is observed as a trait of the group is only the manifestation of each group members needs and desires. Additionally, she surmised that any experiences that are deemed significant and enduring within the group can only come through positive and diverse encounters in group interactions, which means that group interactions will determine how well the group functions. Finally, she asserted that the individual and the group are not separate concepts from the community at large, supporting that the group’s interactions are reflections of the group’s overall environment.

These revelations propelled Follett’s interest in connecting her concepts in The New State to the problems of workplace relationships and management interactions, as defined in her book, Creative Experience in 1924, wherein she espoused that her community development theories could equally apply to the workplace (Boje & Rosile, 2001; Tonn, 2003). Organizations, like communities, are a composite of localized social systems involving networks of groups with individuals who bring their individual experiences in promoting group functioning. Through frank and continual interactions with one another in achieving group goals, group members will be able to fulfill their personal goals and strengthen the foundation of group development (Bathurst & Monin, 2010). Although she did not use the term, this is the foundation of the concept of high-performing teams.

She advocated that people were the most valuable commodity within any business operation. She was one of the first to conceptualize the importance of human relationships in the management purview in the industrial sector, suggesting that managers and leaders must view their roles from a holistic perspective and not just in terms of work proficiencies (Boje & Rosile, 2001; Tonn, 2003). She emphasized the need for employee collaboration in management and worker interactions. She was one of the first management theorists to research workplace conflict, suggesting that conflict be conceived as an opportunity for groups to develop innovative strategies rather than be viewed as just a concept to be resolved by individuals (Bathurst & Monin, 2010). This claim earned her a title among some circles as the Mother of Conflict Resolution.

Follett’s work aligned with Taylor’s Scientific Management in that they both encouraged collaborating with the worker on work processes to maximize the organization’s capacity to achieve productive outcomes. However, her work contrasted Taylor’s premise in that Follett stressed the psychology of human interactions in the workplace with emphasis on including the worker on the actual decision-making process with a focus primarily focused on proficient work output (McGrath & Bates, 2017). His concept did not include the worker on making the decision, only in providing input for consideration of final decision. In Taylor’s theory, human capital was still perceived as an extension to proficiency in maximizing machine processes to produce better results. His concept did not suggest that any level of authority was released by the manager. This was in complete contrast to Follett, who emphasized the importance of managers and leaders sharing power with workers (co-active power), rather than exercising power over workers (coercive power) (Bathurst & Monin, 2010).

Follett and Taylor’s work occurred about the same time in history. With the rise of Scientific Management and targeted interest in Taylor’s work, reactions to Follett’s human relations approach gained less universal support (McGrath & Bates, 2017). After her death, for a period of time interest in her concepts significantly reduced. To some measure because of her gender in a male-dominated industry. However, it was due in large part to the fact that she never actually worked in an industrial setting, and that she proposed sharing authority with workers, which was not a concept that was widely accepted. As the human relations era birthed more theorist seeking to understand employee engagement, Follett’s work began to emerge as research of importance and significance. In this emergence, she is now known as the Mother of Modern Management and as the Prophet of Management (Bathurst & Monin, 2010).

Filling the Leadership Gaps

Taylor’s work progressed to the human relations era with the advent of the Hawthorne Studies (Hassard, 2012). These studies, conducted from 1927 to 1932, changed the way organizations perceived what impacted productivity, motivation, and employee satisfaction in the workplace. The Hawthorne Study results indicated that job performance was directly related to employee attitudes in the workplace, to include having a sense of value, having the resources needed to perform expected tasks, and feeling some element of control over the work purview. The findings, which became known as the Hawthorne Effect, suggested employee performance is proportional to how they feel about their value to the organization and to their manager. The study was the first to provide analytical evidence that informal work groups impacted the work environment with a focus on social relationship in the workplace and group productivity (Badshah, 2012; Hassard, 2012).

Subsequent to these studies, many scientists and theorists sought to find answers to maximize employee engagement as well as proficiency in work productivity. As time progressed, Follett’s work resurfaced and gained traction. Behavioral scientists such as psychology professor, Abraham Maslow, and social psychologist, Douglas McGregor, incorporated Taylor’s and Follett’s concept in their research to advance the understanding of the human dynamic in the workplace (Badshah, 2012; McGrath & Bates, 2017; Muo, 2013). More researchers then sought to validate and identify strategies to enhance human interactions for workplace success.

Early research studies support that the workplace has many facets that will impact how employees work as well as the role of leadership in how employees perform (McGrath. & Bates, 2017). If employees are not managed effectively, performance efforts will be far less than necessary to meet strategic objectives. To maximize employee engagement, employees must feel they are appreciated in the workplace and feel confident in their leadership and in their leader’s competencies (Bankar & Gankar, 2013; Kutcher, 2013; Nasomboon, 2014; Wang & Hsieh, 2013). If employees have no confidence in leadership and feel no perception of value, as followers, they will be overtly critical and may seek to undermine and disrupt a leader’s goals. Thus, in an effort to maintain an equitable balance, leaders must be aware of how they approach the leadership role and how leadership actions affect employees Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011).

Leadership and Employee Motivation

Regardless of the organizational venue, all leaders understand that human resources are essential to the success of organizational goals. These resources are the key to effectiveness, productivity, and bottom-line profitability. According to statistics on workplace engagement, the average employee only gives employers 30% to 35% of total possible effort in a given workday (Autry, 2019). That should be a wake-up call to anyone in a leadership position who understands the impact of effort on productivity. Similar statistics suggest that 80% of employees could perform significantly better if they simply wanted to; 70% of staff are less motivated today than they used to be; and 50% only put enough effort into their work to keep their jobs (Autry, 2019).

With extensive HR background, my experience supports that most employees in the workplace want to enjoy their work and do a good job. They want to be considered a valued resource for the work that they do to achieve set goals (van Knippenberg, 2011). However, the actual output that employees put forth on the job depends upon leaders ensuring that the right foundation exists to promote employees to want to achieve that level of productivity. Research on employee motivation supports that employees are motivated to follow leaders that they like and have a psychological connection based on trust (Stoltzfus et al., 2011). The foundation of such a connection begins with the leader’s posture in leading the team.

Leadership Styles Illuminated

Studies consistently confirm that the style of leadership is a key component to establishing an effective workplace relationship with team members (Bligh et al., 2011; Simonet & Tett, 2013). Management gurus have identified several leadership styles, from a very classical autocratic approach to a more engaging approaches (Busse, 2014; Landis et al., 2014; Northouse, 2018). Without effective leadership, organizations would not be able to survive long term in today’s diverse, competitive environment. The problem is that ineffective can be just as destructive as no leadership. Some people are natural born leaders; others must seek development to master effective leadership strategy (Ruggieri & Abbate, 2013).

The concept of the posture of leadership has undergone a revolution in how leadership is perceived and the impact various styles have on team member motivation and engagement (Landis et al., 2014). The style of leadership that an individual embraces also defines how much they allow subordinates to influence team operations and listen to team member input (Ruggieri & Abbate, 2013). Some styles inherently resist acknowledging that anyone other than the leader has any influence on what happens within the team. Other styles acknowledge that their authority is not the only influential authority on the team.

With the control and power of formal leadership comes immense responsibility to those they govern (Busse, 2014; Badshah, 2012). As such, leaders can do enormous damage to employee morale and motivation if leaders misuse that authority, either through lack of concern or for lack of knowledge (Bligh et al., 2011; Simonet & Tett, 2013). Leaders have an inherent responsibility to use their authority wisely and strategically to create an environment in which subordinates have an intrinsic desire to achieve set goals. Traditional leaders are less likely to be successful in today’s current workplace. Research supports that in today’s environment, successful leaders are described as those who are visionaries, innovators, strategic thinkers, intrinsic motivators, and as individuals who do what is right for the organization as well as their employees in an effort to achieve set goals with minimum resistance (Badshah, 2012; Landis et al., 2014; Nasomboon, 2014).

In one research study, it was surmised that true leadership is a choice (Busse, 2014). Unfortunately, many formal leaders never consciously make a choice concerning the leadership ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents Page
• Acknowledgments Page
• Introduction: The Challenge of Workplace Change
• 1 The Historical Groundwork
• 2 Leadership Engagement Understood
• 3 The Informal Leadership Paradigm
• 4 Team Development Effectiveness
• 5 Organizational Citizenship Behavior
• 6 Understand Workplace Culture
• 7 Effective Change Management
• 8 Informal Leadership Influence on Engagement
• Bibliography
• Index