You Have A Hardworking, Talented, And Positive Team

You Have A Hard Working Team Of Talented And Positive Employees You T

You have a hard working team of talented and positive employees. You tend to practice what chapter 9 calls people-centered management. You like to give your employees freedom to make decisions and that freedom motivates them since they are already driven to succeed. HOWEVER ... your upper management is very old school and would prefer you to have employees practice very defined routines that often run counter to your leadership style. How might you navigate these tricky waters as a supervisor? (Other than reading chapter 9 for background, you won't find this answer in the book. Have some fun with a substantive answer and respond to a fellow classmate.)

Paper For Above instruction

Navigating the tension between people-centered management and traditional, routine-based expectations from upper management requires a strategic balance rooted in effective communication, adaptability, and leadership diplomacy. As a supervisor committed to fostering a motivated and autonomous team, yet operating under the constraints of an old-school management culture, it is essential to employ nuanced strategies that align these conflicting paradigms without compromising team morale or organizational compliance.

First, establishing open lines of communication with upper management is crucial. By proactively discussing your leadership approach and presenting evidence of the benefits of autonomy—such as increased innovation, employee engagement, and productivity—you can advocate for a more flexible management style. For instance, sharing success stories or data-driven results where a people-centered approach led to measurable improvements can influence upper management’s perceptions (Goleman, 2013). This dialogue allows you to subtly introduce elements of routine adherence that do not necessarily conflict with your leadership philosophy, such as setting clear expectations or regular check-ins, without compromising your team's independence.

Secondly, it is important to adapt your management style to include certain routine practices that upper management values, while still maintaining the core elements of autonomy that motivate your team. For example, implementing standardized reporting or meeting protocols that comply with organizational policies can serve as a bridge. These routines create a semblance of structure that satisfies upper management’s requirements, while your team continues to enjoy the freedom to decide how to accomplish their tasks within that structure. Such a hybrid approach demonstrates flexibility and respect for organizational hierarchy, fostering trust between you, your team, and upper management (Herzberg, 1966).

Additionally, fostering a culture of transparency and accountability within your team can help shift perceptions internally. When your team maintains high performance standards and adheres to agreed routines, it becomes easier to justify flexible decision-making practices. Transparency in goals, progress, and challenges builds confidence in your leadership style and reassures upper management that productivity remains a priority, even if routines are adapted to suit team dynamics.

It is also beneficial to leverage informal influencers within the organization—such as respected senior staff or champions of innovative management practices—who can advocate for your leadership style. Building alliances and demonstrating the effectiveness of your approach through small successes can gradually influence broader organizational culture, or at least soften resistance to your management methods.

Finally, developing a contingency plan that respects the core routines valued by upper management while allowing your team the autonomy to innovate within those routines can be a strategic compromise. For example, establishing a clearly defined framework of procedures that must be followed, but giving team members discretion in how they meet the procedural requirements, preserves both accountability and motivation. This approach aligns with the concept of bounded autonomy, where freedom is exercised within defined constraints (McGregor, 1960).

In conclusion, navigating these "tricky waters" requires a combination of strategic communication, adaptability, and safeguarding the autonomy that motivates your team. By creating a hybrid management approach that meets organizational expectations without sacrificing employee engagement, a supervisor can foster a positive, productive environment that balances the needs of all stakeholders.

References

• Goleman, D. (2013). The focused leader: How effective executives direct their own and their organizations’ attention. Harvard Business Review, 91(12), 50–60.
• Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.
• McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
• Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2015). Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development. Nelson Education.
• Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications.
• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2015). The New Public Service: Serving, Not Steering. Routledge.
• Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in Organizations. Pearson Education.
• Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The Leadership Challenge. Wiley.