In a highly cohesive team, employees may feel free to express their feelings rather than to suppress that they emerge as hidden agenda. In an uncohesive organization, much of the time and energy of the employees and even leaders may be devoted to items in a hidden agenda that distracts considerably from solving problems and doing the job. Nevertheless, highly cohesive companies tend to experience fewer hidden agendas (Levine, 2003). If not recognized or tapped, the power of the follower is great enough to undermine the leader’s influence and cause organizational problems (Daft, 2002).
Theoretically, an employee-centered approach yields maximum productivity because those closest to the work are most capable of redesigning it for greater efficiency. However, artificially enforced efficiency is often fought so hard that gains are lost. In addition, theorists maintained that an employee-centered leadership style increases team members’ satisfaction and boosts their morale (Gilley and Eggland, 1998). Just as the leader shall do, the follower must wear a congenial stance, present his inputs clearly, succinctly and fairly, and maintain attitudes of sincerity, open-mindedness and objectivity (Wofford, et al.
, 2001). While the selected leader must be capable of effective expression, be impartial, and have permissive attitude toward the followers,
Need essay sample on "Organizational problems"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $13.90/page
But he must also be willing to change his mind if points of view by other participants show him to be wrong. Forethought shall enable him to understand opposition to his view if it arises and to make a valid and intelligent adjustment (Daft, 2002). The more thoroughly he organizes his facts and ideas and relate them to the task at hand and to the people involved, the more effective and influential his contributions to the carrying out will be (Wofford, et al. , 2001). It may not always be possible for the follower to know a great deal about the other members of their group.
To the extent that the follower can acquaint himself with their values and interests, however, he will be able to judge more accurately and the importance of their contributions and to determine more fairly the role he must play in order to make the group process profitable (Wofford, et al. , 2001). A follower must also pay close attention to the course of action as it progresses. Unless he is focused on what is going on, he will forget what has already been endorsed or lose track of the direction in which the thinking of the group seems to be moving (Daft, 2002).
As a result, he may make foolish or irrelevant inputs, require the restatement of points already settled, or misunderstand the positions taken by other group members (Wofford, et al. , 2001). After all, a leader providing positive reinforcement is a leader creating a positive climate around the group. If leaders let their followers know they are doing well and that their participation is appreciated, the followers become more responsive to where their leader will direct them. Active cooperation is based on the principle of active learning.
Active learning is the opposite of passive learning. Cooperation works because the followers are actively engaged in learning (Kelley, 1992). Daft explains that in a kind of simple team leadership like this, the leader has to constantly sense and understand the viewpoints of everyone around the table. Once, the group could be in turmoil, overloaded by work and missing deadlines. Tensions could be high among the members. Tinkering with procedures may be not enough to bring the group together and make it an effective part of the activity.
In a series of one-on-one sessions, Daft emphasizes that it is important to take the time to listen to everyone in the group; what is frustrating them, how they rate their colleagues, whether they feel they have been ignored (Daft, 2002). Underlying the bigger kind of leadership, that is organizational leadership model, is a set of assumptions about basic human needs or giving the spotlight to the people side of organization, tackled by Richard Daft in Chapter 8 (Daft, 2002).
The people side of organizations came into its own in the 1930s, predominately as a result of the Hawthorne studies. These studies led to a new emphasis on the human factor in organizations and increased paternalism by management. In the late 1950s, managers’ attention was caught by the ideas of people like Abraham Maslow and Douglas McGregor, who proposed that organization structures and management practices had to be altered so as to bring out the full productive potential of the employees (Goleman, 2001).