Recent orders
TO CONTROL AND BUILD TRUST HOW MANAGERS USE ORGANISATIONAL CONTROLS AND TRUST BUILDING ACTIVITIES TO MOTIVATE SUBORDINATE COO
TO CONTROL AND BUILD TRUST: HOW MANAGERS USE ORGANISATIONAL CONTROLS AND TRUST BUILDING ACTIVITIES TO MOTIVATE SUBORDINATE COOPERATION
By
Course
Tutor
University
City + State
Date
To Control and Build Trust: How Managers Use Organisational Controls and Trust Building Activities to Motivate Subordinate Cooperation
Knowledge
Over the years, management styles within an organisation have been changing. However, the vital factor that has to stand out in these styles is enhancing the employees’ performances by creating a great relationship between the manager and the employee. Due to this, the concept of trust and control has been associated with management due to its impact on enhancing employees’ performances (Nowell and Middleton, 2016). As a result, several studies have tried to explain and build more knowledge on the concept of trust and management control (Bijlsma-Frankema and Costa, 2005). The idea of management control started in the 1970s. Ever since, new knowledge has been developed as a result of various research conducted on the subject (Cardinal, Sitkin, and Long 2004, p 411). Studies have shown that for an organisation to be successful, the managers have to build and maintain their relationships with their employees or subordinates (Vyakarnam, Robin and Jari, 1999). Trust and control have been considered a substituting or a complementary component of building and maintaining these relationships.
Moreover, these studies have also shown that there is an advantage in managers exercising a given amount of legitimacy-enhancing supervisory control on their subordinates (Bass et al., 2003). Research has shown that there is a shift in balance in the level of control within organisations. Given the interest of researchers on trust and control dynamics, managers have been able to evolve their trust and management control approaches to effect changes in their organisations (Sitkin and George, 2005, p. 309). The drivers for these evolutions have been the shift between form and informal control mechanisms (Cardinal, Sitkin and Long, 2004, p. 412). Despite these evolutions, studies have shown that it is has been hard for managers to balance the control and trust dynamics to get the best out of their employees (Long and Sitkin, 2018, p. 726). Besides, researchers have struggled with the contradictions and gaps that have made it harder to answer some of the questions that arise from the balance of such dynamics (Long and Sitkin, 2018, p. 745). Therefore, currently, researchers have been trying to distinguish control activities from trust-building activities.
Theory
Control and trust are considered vital factors that enable managers to get the best out of their employees or subordinates. As a result, the aspect of control and trust has been operating on the theoretical framework in which the dynamics of control and trust can be used in a balanced way, and the manager can enhance employees’ performances (Long, 2018, p. 70). Therefore, many managers’ challenge is how they can handle the tensions that arise from control and trust. These tensions arise when the employee can mistake control as an aspect of the manager trying to reduce his or her autonomy. Many managers are always in a dilemma on how they can use control to build trust from their subordinates, whether they apply the controls strongly or fairly. However, at times, managers are more prone to try to earn their subordinates’ trust to the point they cannot control subordinates, resulting in low or average work performance in the case of subordinates (Long, 2010, p 365). Conversely, based on the managerial perspectives, researchers have managed to come up with conclusions crucial for managers in comprehending the theoretical aspects of control and trust dynamics.
Firstly, many researchers tend to agree that if managers can balance their efforts in using control approaches and try to earn their subordinates’ trust, they will be able to motivate them in committing to their responsibilities as well as enhancing the work performance (Long, 2018, p. 71). Secondly, scholars have also agreed that it is evident that many managers are trying to have a balance in their control and trust dynamics (Long, 2018, p. 71). However, it should be noted that while progress has been made in this area, there are still gaps that do not explain how managers can implement these directives (control activities) when trying to earn their subordinates’ trust. Besides, researchers are also to agree on the manager’s perspectives on control and how they use it to gain trust (Long, 2018, p. 73). On the other hand, scholars have tried to address the issues mentioned above, however, they are still held back by the lack of knowledge on how managers control and direct their subordinates (Long, 2018, p. 73). Generally, there is not much information on the trust-building process among managers, given the number of researchers involved in addressing such an issue.
Application of Long’s Research on Organisational Context
Given that there was a gap in the lack of knowledge on how managers control and direct their subordinates, Long’s (2018) research tries to address this issue. Through the study, he found out that for managers to motivate their subordinates, they have been using control mechanisms to clarify the results, and expectations required from the assistants. It is evident from the study that indeed, managers use control activities to build trust with their subordinates. Due to this, managers can use their trustworthiness to convince their subordinates to trust them (Long, 2018, p. 79). Besides, while other researches have to be conducted to approve some of the results discovered by Long’s research, the study did suggest that managers usually use a multifaceted trust-building strategy in trying to enhance employees’ work engagements as well trying to develop interpersonal relationships. Given the managers’ urge to motivate the employees, it does show that they are keen on the control approaches they select and implement to earn their subordinates’ trust (Long, 2018, p. 82). Long’s research has managed to disagree with the experimental studies that have always indicted that managers have ever used ‘control’ to inform employees of their responsibilities rather than emphasizing the work that managers put in place to prove their trustworthiness (Biljsma-Frankema and Costa, 2010). As a result, Long’s study expounds on the knowledge of trust dynamics currently being experienced in organisations.
References
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003) ‘Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership’, Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), pp.207. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207
Bijlsma-Frankema, K.M. and Costa, A.C. (2005) ‘Understanding the trust-control nexus’, International Sociology, 20, pp. 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0268580905055477
Biljsma-Frankema, K. M., and Costa, A. (2010) ‘Consequences and antecedents of managerial and employee legitimacy interpretations of control: a natural system approach’, in Sitkin, S. Cardinal, B. and Bijlsma-Frankema, K (eds.), Organizational control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 396-433.
Cardinal, L.B., Sitkin, S.B. and Long, C.P. (2004) ‘Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organisational control’, Organisation science, 15(4), pp.411-431. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034746 (Accessed 20 July 2020).
Long, C. P. (2010) ‘Control to cooperation: examining the role of managerial authority in portfolios of managerial action’, in Sitkin, S. Cardinal, B. and Bijlsma-Frankema, K (eds.), Organizational control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 365-395.
Long, C.P. (2018) ‘To control and build trust: how managers use organisational controls and trust-building activities to motivate subordinate cooperation’, Accounting, Organisations and Society, 70, pp.69-91. Available at: www.elsevier.com/locate/aos (Accessed 20 July 2020).
Long, C.P. and Sitkin, S.B. (2018) ‘Control–trust dynamics in organisations: identifying shared perspectives and charting conceptual fault lines’, Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), pp.725-751. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0055
Nowell, P. and Middleton, K.W. (2016) Examining the control-trust nexus in new venture teamwork. Gothenburg, Sweden: Chalmers University of Technology. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1572/07d8fdfd836eb5dbb7622adb9be9f0f57502.pdf (Accessed 20 July 2020).
Sitkin, S. B. and George, E. (2005) ‘Managerial trust-building through the use of legitimating formal and informal control mechanisms’, International Sociology, 20, pp. 307-338. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0268580905055479
Vyakarnam, S., Robin, J. and Jari, H. (1999) ‘Exploring the formation of entrepreneurial teams: the key to rapid growth business?’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,6(2), pp. 153-165. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006673
The Evolution of the American Families
The Evolution of the American Families
Agents of socialization denote those significant people, groups, and institutions that shape an individual’s sense of self and social identity, and help the concerned individual in realizing his/her capacities and limitations as human beings (“Agents of Socialization”, n.d.). These agents play the role of teachers teaching an individual how to negotiate with the world and social environment in which he/she dwells (“Agents of Socialization”, n.d.). The list of the agents of socialization can be a huge one but in reality there are specific agents of socialization which should be mentioned before analyzing the significance of the role of any one of these agents of socialization in an individual’s evolution. The primary agents of socialization are the family, friends, peers, and educational institutions. And among them family should be considered as a pivotal one. This is because family “gives individuals their deepest and earliest experiences with relationships and their first exposure to the rules of life. In addition, the family teaches its members about the world in which they live and ways to respond to it” (“Agents of Socialization”, n.d.). Hence, it is obvious that like in any other societies of the world, in the American society too, the emphasis on the evolution of American families must be observed and analyzed to ascertain the reasons behind the evolution of the social viewpoints on the part of the consecutive generations of the Americans.
As stated earlier, family is the primary agent of socialization and keeping in mind this point one should try to analyze the changes that took place in the pattern and outlook of the American families over the last few decades to understand the changing psychology of American individuals. Today what we are seeing the American families to be was not the truth back in the 1960s. Since the 1960s the American families are changing and over the last 50 years one can observe a “dramatic rise in divorce (the U.S. has the highest of any industrialized nation), cohabitation rather than marriage, “blended” families of both gay and heterosexual design, and children born out of wedlock (more than half of all African-American children) (Castelloe, 2011). And all these must be considered as drastic changes. The emergence of the culture of egotism due to the financial boost experienced by the majority of the American populace in the post-1960s, contributed a lot to the growth of American individualism which in turn brought about conflict between married couples. Moreover, the culture of self-actualization, i.e. the “desire for self-fulfillment” (Cherry, n.d.), also dissuaded both American men and women from the playing their conventional gender roles in bringing up a family and this also contributed to the deterioration in the degree of cohesiveness within most of the American families. Furthermore, the continuous waves of feminism and the attempt to empower women in the American society did also contribute to the changes that eventually took place in the American family pattern after the 1960s. The economic empowerment of American women did contribute a lot in changing the American family pattern. It must be noted that “The rise of dual career, two-income marriages has also transformed domestic arrangements” (Castelloe, 2011). And this is a definite change to reckon with. Again, the evolution of social media has also contributed significantly in reshaping the American family ties. It is the influence of the social networking sites that has turned the attention of the American children from real relationships to the virtual ones, and this is detrimental for the future of American family life. It must be admitted that affecting the American family pattern thoroughly social networking sites like Facebook have become the surrogate parents and the “proliferation of technologies like social networking, cell phones, and video games have altered how children relate to significant others” (Castelloe, 2011). Besides, it must be mentioned that the change in the American family pattern is also related to the concepts of class, race, gender, and personal choice. The race factor, since the emergence of America as a multiracial country, has played an important role in shaping the American families and “the value of families themselves have often, in this country, been affected by the factor of race” (Perry, n.d.). The factor of social class along with the factor of race has gradually shaped the viewpoints of the families composed of American blacks. It is a fact that the blacks in America “as a subordinate group must often use independent judgment about majoritarian values, and create and pass on to their children values that are alternatives to, or even in opposition, those of the larger society” (Perry, n.d.). And apart from all these, it must be admitted that the theory of personal choice as propagated by the feminist theories, has also instigated American women to adhere to their own will and desires, which, in some cases, is impacting hugely on the American family pattern.
It must be noted that though the American families have changed a lot since the 1960s and though there have been some disadvantages of such changes, some benefits of such social changes should not be overlooked. The diversification in the pattern of American families has paved the way for the reduction in the inclination towards racism and this in turn has led to the diminishing of the concept of segregation. The acceptance of inter-racial marriages, inter-class marriages, and the admittance to individuals having different sexual orientations to be within the social institutions like family, all are going to the enrich the cultural heritage of the country in a positive manner and this enhancement can also contribute to the economic growth of the U.S. either in a direct or in an indirect way because a country’s economic prosperity largely depends on its social organization and cultural norms. Moreover, the trend of empowering women in the U.S. should be sustained because such empowerment is necessary to establish a just and equal society. And the U.S. populace should not try to establish the pre-World War II social norms because that would mean the subordination of women and the reincarnation of uncontrollable male domination which would not be a healthy thing for the democratic American society anymore.
(1,027 words)
References
Agents of Socialization (n.d.). Retrieved July 31, 2013, from https://www.inkling.com/read/seeing-sociology-joan-ferrante-1st/chapter-3/module-3-5
Castelloe, M. (2011). The Me in We. Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-me-in-we/201104/changes-in-the-american-family
Perry, T.L. (n.d.). Family Values, Race, Feminism and Public Policy. Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/other/lawreview/familyvalues.html
What Is Self-Actualization? (n.d.). Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/hierarchyneeds_2.htm
The Evolution of Management
The Evolution of Management
Based on the article, “The Management Century”, there were three respects of management. The first one was called conscious raising where management was viewed as a set of practices that could be studied and then improved. In conscious raising, management was to be deeply rooted in economics, which entailed reaching for the highest efficiency by simply using the available resources. Three eras then punctuated the period from early 1880’s to date. During the first error that occurred in the years that preceded World War II, scientific exactitude aspirations led to ambitions of self-proclaimed, new elite. The second era took place from 1940s to 1980s. It was called the recognized as the managerial era of good feelings, its apogee of widespread public support and self-confidence. The last and ongoing era has been marked by a particular retreat- into servitude to market forces, specialization, and declining moral ambitions. Moreover, it has also been an era characterized by global triumph that is majorly measured by agreement on specific crucial ideas, the worldwide march of MBA degree, steadily improving productivity, and an overall elevation of expectations on how employees ought to be treated.
My understanding of management has generally evolved significantly over time. This is because the world of business, leadership, innovation and management is dynamic and at every point in time, thing change. This has necessitated my need to acquire the new skills, knowledge and mindset in order to cope up with the changing times in the global environment. The approach given to management during the shareholder capitalism’s ascent over stakeholder capitalism in the mid nineteenth century cannot be used now in the 21st Century. A new concept and approach has to be adapted known as the shift towards leadership and innovation in order to provide the fundamental leadership that resonates with the current global standards requirement.