Organisational Roles & Relationships: Free Research Article, Prof. Dr. Crawford |
|
|
Organisational Roles & Role Relationships
- Research Paper (Research Article) 9:
A Free Research Paper, from HRODC Postgraduate Training Institute, A
Postgraduate-Only Institution
Prof. Dr. R. B. Crawford
|
Prof. Dr. R. B. Crawford is
Programme
Coordinator. He is the Director of HRODC Postgraduate Training
Institute, A Postgraduate-Only Institution. He has the following
Qualifications and Affiliations:
Doctor of Philosophy {(PhD) {University College London (UCL) -
University of London)};
MEd Management (University of Bath);
Postgraduate (Advanced) Diploma Science Teacher Ed. (University
of Bristol);
Postgraduate Certificate in Information Systems (University of
West London, formerly Thames Valley University);
Diploma in Doctoral Research Supervision, (University of
Wolverhampton);
Teaching Certificate;
Fellow of the Institute of Management Specialists;
Human Resources Specialist, of the Institute of Management
Specialists;
Member of the Asian Academy of Management (MAAM);
Member of the International Society of Gesture Studies (MISGS);
Member of the Standing Council for Organisational Symbolism (MSCOS);
Member of ResearchGate;
Executive Member of Academy of Management (AOM). There, his
contribution incorporates the judging of competitions, review of
journal articles, and guiding the development of conference
papers. He also contributes to the Disciplines of:
Human Resources;
Organization and Management Theory;
Organization Development and Change;
Research Methods;
Conflict Management;
Organizational Behavior;
Management Consulting;
Gender & Diversity in Organizations; and
Critical Management Studies.
Professor Dr. Crawford has been an Academic in the following UK
Universities:
University of London (Royal Holloway), as Research Tutor;
University of Greenwich (Business School), as Senior Lecturer
(Associate Professor), in Organisational Behaviour and Human
Resource Management;
University of Wolverhampton, (Wolverhampton Business School), as
Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor), in Organisational
Behaviour and Human Resource Management.
London Southbank University (Business School), as Lecturer and
Unit Leader.
His responsibilities in these roles included:
Doctoral Research Supervisor;
Admissions Tutor;
Postgraduate and Undergraduate Dissertation Supervisor;
Programme Leader;
Personal Tutor.
Consequent to
the popularity of this Paper, it is now being offered Free of Cost to
our site visitors, who need the valuable
information that it contains. Please click this link to view and download other
Free research Papers on this website.
Despite the free issue of this article, the
copyright remains with the above author. It
is one of several Research Papers
(Research Articles) published by HRODC Postgraduate Training
Institute, A Postgraduate-Only Institution.
In accordance with International
Intellectual Property Laws, direct or
indirect reference to this and other
Research Papers (Research Articles) on this
site must be acknowledged – the author being
cited and HRODC Postgraduate Training
Institute noted as publisher.
|
Research Paper 9: A Free Research Paper
Organisational Role and Role Relationships
Prof Dr Crawford – Director HRODC Postgraduate
Training Institute
Role, according to Berger (1973. p.79), role is a "typified
response to a typified expectation". For Raven and Ruben (1976, p. 514), role is
a "pattern of behaviour that characterises and is expected of a person who
occupies certain position in a group or social organisation". These two
definitions bear some similarities. However, we might analyse the, slightly more
explicit, one by Raven and Ruben. There are two parts to this definition. The
first is, the pattern of behaviour that characterises a person who occupies
certain position in a group or social organisation. Suggestive, here, is that a
person who occupies a certain position takes on role characteristics. This means
that there are certain qualities or characteristics, which are typical of a
person within that position. Also implicit, are the suggestions that: The
behaviour, which is typical, is contingent on the particular position. Certain
behaviour is standard for one position and might not be for another; the
position, and its characteristic behaviour, is standard. Whoever the post holder
is, the behaviour which typifies the position remains the same: The position
makes no distinction between personalities, who occupy the role; Although the
incumbents, from time to time, change, the role characteristics and standardised
behaviour remain the same.
The other part of the definition suggests that there is a pattern
of behaviour that is typical of a person who occupies a position in a group or
social organisation. Implicit, here, is the notion that not only is the
behaviour standard, but that there is a standard set of behavioural
expectations. This is a potentially conflicting situation, in that whilst the
behaviour is constant, or rather permanent, there is a set of expectations,
which is also fairly standard, but not necessarily in total conformity with the
standard behaviour. To make it even more confusing is the idea that the
individual, who occupies a certain position, has a set of people who expects
certain display of behaviour from him or her. This set of people, represents the
individual’s role set.
The fact that the role set itself constitutes several role
segments or subsets of the role set, means that what appears to be a standard
set of behavioural patterns and expectations becomes a varying pattern and
expectations of behaviour. This means that the incumbent is expected to respond
to the role set, collectively and satisfactorily, and at the same time
fulfilling the needs and aspirations of each segment. This seems highly
hypocritical, the fact that conflicts are almost inevitable - conflict of
interests and expectations. Whenever the incumbent attempts to represent these
need, aspirations and expectations, one group or other groups might not be
satisfied. The incumbent, by virtue of his or her position as a role actor, may
act out different scenes within certain contexts. Then it might mean failing to
satisfy a number of role segments, while attempting to satisfy others. Some
segments may be satisfied on one occasion, and another or others on subsequent
occasions. Probably the most important thing, is that certain groups, or certain
segments, should not feel totally ignored, in terms of being given preference to
decisions.
As was indicated in the role relationship models, which are
presented, a manager has both his superior/s and subordinates to satisfy, along
with those people who are not necessarily under his direct control, but who are
much lower in the hierarchy. It could be a matter of making decisions in, for
example, resource allocation and utilisation. One example might be a production
manager who makes demands regarding, and expects his assistant manager to reduce
the level of consumption to be reduced from 5X amount to 4X. At the same time,
assistant managers own subordinates expect to be allocated 5X amount of
resources. These represent fairly constant demands and each of the segments will
increase its level of demands. It means that the manager or head of a department
might, at one time, satisfy the demands of her director or principal by reducing
the resource allocation and utilisation, but cannot do this at all times. She is
likely to find it necessary to satisfy the demands of her subordinates, at least
some of the times, in terms of the amount of resources allocated to them. This
is because he may want to establish or maintain a good relationship with them on
the perception that this will create the possibility of a high level of
influence, and reduce conflicts.
In society at large, and in the various sectors of society, there
is a high level of individuality with respect to roles. What happens is, in
fact, that the individual in society may change his or her role without seeking
a great deal of compromise from others. For example, a person who occupies the
position of a bachelor, may change to a married person without causing many
problems. The individual may also change occupation, quite easily. In an
organisational context, roles are tied to the tasks to be performed and the
individual finds it difficult to interchange between one role and another. There
is an abounding duty for an individual to play the particular role assigned to
him or her until, if and when, another assignment is given, in which case
another individual will occupy his or her former position as a replacement. This
does not preclude the occupation of more that one role, by one individual, on a
permanent basis, and rotation (moving from one job to another) on a temporary
basis.
Despite the claim regarding the high degree of permanence, it
should made quite clear that organisational roles can, in fact be and often are
disbanded or re-defined. This is particularly true in the event of
organisational re-design or re-structuring. The notion of accountability comes
into play, here, in which case an individual is accountable, not only to those
who make policy decisions, but also to the people who implement them and those
on whom they are likely to have an effect, negative or positive.
Another important aspect of role is the incumbent’s perception of
the requirements of his or her role. This perception, claims Wren and Voich
(1984), is a product of past experience or, in the case of a new incumbent, a
personal judgement of the role requirements. Implicit in roles are norms and
values. Values are highly abstracted and present great difficulty of
interpretation. In society at large, they are lade with requirement, the
realisation of which is of a high moral demand (Katz and Kahn, 1978). In
organisations. there are values too - however, they relate to goal
accomplishment.
Norms are the behavioural expectations of a role set for a role
actor. Requirements may be specified, but not at the level of role expectations.
Norms, as proposed by Argyle (1972), represent a group’s solutions to the
external and internal problems that confront it. This, he asserts, is a rule,
e.g. about promotion and discipline, which are used to administer the activities
of the organisation. One major difficulty with norms is that an individual is
expected to interpret and respond to the demands of particular situations as
they arise.
LOW ROLE SPECIFICITY: ROLE AMBIGUITY ROLE
AVOIDANCE
There should be no question concerning what is required of an
incumbent within an organisational setting (Weeks, 1974). He or she should know:
what his or her tasks are in relation to the primary task; his or her span of
management (if any); the different role segment which are associated with that
role set; the immediate role sender, that is the person to whom he or she is
directly accountable. A situation that falls short of this specification, may
lead to the role being ambiguous. Following from this, the situation will arise
where confusion persists.
The incumbent, is such situation, has very few choices, apart
from requesting that the role be specified. On one hand, he might enact the part
of a role misfit in which case he or she will narrow the boundary of operation
tremendously, to reduce the level of contact with the significant others (those
important role determiners). This might be if it results in low performance of
more explicit aspects of the role. On the other hand, the incumbent might draw
on his experience and make a number of assumptions regarding his role. The
implications are that conflict will result as boundary intrusion becomes
inevitable. This means that individuals perform their roles without specific
guidelines pertaining to their duties and areas of responsibility, thus leading
to inconsistent perception of roles. The fact is that there has not been a
mutual agreement regarding who should do what, means that it is likely that one
individual may perform activities that are presumed by another or others to be
within their area of operation.
Low role specificity could also have the reverse effect, thus
resulting in role avoidance. In this case, the role is deliberately shirked by
one or both parties who perform related roles. The notion of role avoidance is
distinct from the concept of role dodging, which is discussed below. While the
role avoider deliberately and openly rejects the implicit aspects of his job,
the role dodger is more discreet and exhibits a great deal of pretence, thus
disguising that he fails to perform his explicit duties. While the role dodger
accepts the responsibility for the performance of certain tasks, the role
avoider points the finger at someone else.
HIGH ROLE SPECIFICITY: ROLE DODGING - PLAYING IT
SAFE.
While it is desirable for roles to be specified, too high a
specification might have tremendous ill effects. When role requirements are
detailed, there is no room for initiative. High specification requires close
supervision. This fact is noted by Katz and Kahn (1978) who suggested that there
is a high preference, among workers, for general, rather than close supervision.
Gray and Starke (1988, p.257) note that supportive behaviours from the manager,
not direction, will rebuild commitment of workers to organisational objectives.
Close supervision subsequently leads to role dodging and the act of playing it
safe. In this case, the organisation members try to do only the things that are
specified. Things that are well within their capacity to do, but which are not
specified, will be neglected. Role dodgers avoid work but exhibit a great deal
of pretence because they do not want the fact to be known to those in authority.
The underlying assumption is that no credit will be given to them for
undertaking activities that are considered to be outside their specified areas
of responsibility.
Not only are un-specified tasks avoided, but so are specified
ones. Previous research (Crawford, 1985) has indicated that role dodgers are
often commended for the behaviours that they make explicit, and which,
therefore, are noticed by those concerned and who are able to show recognition.
In this case study, one subordinate who, under normal circumstance, exhibited
poor professional conduct and a low level of competence was recommended for
promotion above others who, on the whole, were quite competent and exhibited a
high level of professionality. ‘Mr T’, one of the role dodgers, made significant
efforts to draw the attention of the manager to any activity that he had
undertaken and which was considered worthwhile. As a result, he received open
commendation. In the presence of the manager, he made a marvellous exhibition of
his performance. Unfortunately, in his absence, ‘Mr. T’. reverted to his usual
poor performance.
A further explanation of the notion of role dodging is that
whenever the role dodgers are being watched, they make great effort to please
their superiors. On the withdrawal of close supervision, they revert to their
normal behaviour, that of neglecting some elements of their role. The idea of
‘playing it safe’ relates to the fact that some individuals might behave in an
expected manner, merely to satisfy the onlooker. The resistance or
non-commitment of these individuals to the required role enactment is therefore
a latent factor.
ROLE ACTUALISATION
It might be worth considering the social anthropological view of
role. is seen to consist of "the activity the incumbent would engage in were he
to act solely in terms of the normative demands upon someone in his position"
(Katz and Kahn, 1978. p.85). Implicit in this definition, is the suggestion that
certain normative demands are made of individuals in given positions, in which
event total conformity is optional. Realistically speaking, some truth is
conveyed. This is if whatever built-in role requirements there might be, there
will be varying levels of compliance. The levels of compliance will depend on
the particular personality as a role incumbent. The idea of self-image is
nonetheless evident, thus particular personality traits might be associated with
a given role. The role incumbent is therefore expected to change to fit closely
into the role. Although the personality requirement is implicit, there is no
rule regarding the universality of roles accompanying each position. As noted by
Goffman (1973) what is handled from one position in one organisation, may be
apportioned to two or three kinds of positions in another organisation. The
point made, is that what is seen as a single role in one organisation, may be
several roles in another. An added complication is that although the role
sectors or role segments might be similar in two organisations, the actual role
enactment might be different. The role of a director for example, differs from
one organisation to another. The incumbent at first, behaves according to his
perception of the behaviour that is expected of him. Later, adjustments are made
in conformity with real expectations.
An important point made by Berger (1973) is that identity comes
with conduct and that conduct occurs in response to a specific social situation.
This means that the person playing a particular role expects social support from
his role set. His behaviour might generate social characteristic like,
democratic, autocratic, generous, dedicated. This social self (the self seen by
others) helps in maintaining his self ideal (whom he actually is,
behaviourally), thus strengthening his role position. Implicit, here, is the
suggestion that the incumbent is constrained by, not only the expectations of
his role set, but also the support that it is willing to give. This has
implications for the management of organisations in that the manager might, in
some cases, be able to generate acceptable behaviour, and at other times is
unable to do so. Whatever strategies are used, it is expected that when policy
decisions are made, they will be, largely, acceptable to those who are to
implement them. The degree of acceptability pertains, not only to the strategies
used, but, to the extent to which these strategies conform to the expectations
of the role set. Pertinent to these expectations is the pattern that the
incumbent has established, about his choice of strategies.
The structure of an organisation dictates the extent to which
roles might be specified. The degree of specificity of organisation structure
rests on a continuum, from high to low. If the hierarchical and matrix
structures are placed on the extremes of the continuum from left to right,
respectively, the hierarchical structure will be seen to have a high role
specification and the matrix structure, low role specification (see Fig.). It
therefore means that organisations that fall on different points of the
continuum will have varying degrees of role specification. Since organisation
structure embodies a system of relationship, it follows that these relationships
relate to the roles. The implications are that while some organisations (those
toward the left of the continuum) will require clearly defined role
relationship, others (those on the right) require low level of specification.
The fact that there are problems with both high and low role
specifications, heralds the necessity for deliberate attempt to create levels of
relationships that will generate a balance, thus avoiding the two extremes, high
and low role specification. This situation is difficult to achieve because roles
and role relationships are an essential function of organisational structure.
Nevertheless, the fact is that the degree, to which an organisational structure
is permanent, is contingent on the extent to which the members of the
organisation are unwilling to change their behaviour. This is suggestive of the
fact that, despite the difficulties that are implicit, the possibility does
exist for such major change.
Avoidance of extremes, high and low role specifications, can
allay fears of excessive role dodging and role avoidance, particularly because
low role specificity connotes arbitrary role enactment, and a high level of
specification suggests a great deal of rigidity.
Fig. 1: Relationship Between Organisational Structure and Role
Specificity.
Hierarchical Structure
Matrix Structure
High Role
Specification Low Role
Specification
ROLE SET
Each individual in organisations belongs to two or more groups - in the most
formal sense, she belongs to one or two command groups (a group consisting of a
superior and her subordinates) and an informal group. The individual also
belongs to the larger group, the organisation. There are also several groups of
which the individual is not a member. For example, if he works in the accounts
department, he might not be a member of the marketing group. All the different
groups and individuals within them have perception as to how a particular role
should be enacted. As a result, they have expectations of the behaviour of the
incumbent.
We
might therefore define a role set as all those who have general behavioural
expectations of an incumbent and in some way affect his behaviour. It is
therefore possible for the role set to extend beyond the boundaries of the
organisation. It is important to note that individuals within a role set might
have quite different expectations of an incumbent. This makes the role set’s
expectation of an incumbent general, rather than specific.
ROLE SEGMENT
Since each individual might perceive the role of an incumbent differently, it is
possible that they are grouped in accordance with their similarity of
expectations of the behaviour of incumbents. Those who have similar and specific
expectations of incumbents for segments or sub-groups, which might relate to the
way in which they are grouped for the performance of formal organisational
tasks.
A
role segment might then be regarded as one or more people who are members of a
role set and who have similar expectations of an incumbent. Colleagues of an
incumbent might also form a segment of his role. Despite the fact that the model
below highlights the role of the managing director, connoting that the person
who enacts that role is the incumbent, it must be remembered that anyone and
everyone is an incumbent and therefore has a role set.
CONFLICT AND ROLE CONFLICT
Conflict might be regarded as :
The traditional view of conflict is that it is something to avoid at all cost, a phenomenon that has disastrous consequences for the organisation. This is not the full story. Conflict is desirable but must be managed effectively.
|
Conflict might be regarded as:
The
traditional view of conflict is that it is something to avoid at all cost, a
phenomenon that has disastrous consequences for the organisation. This is not
the full story. Conflict is desirable but must be managed effectively
(Figures 1 &2, in PDF
Copy)
Conflict enables individuals to re-evaluate their stance, usually
arriving at a ‘satisfying’ solution in the interest of the organisation.
Conflict of this sort is explicit and might manifest in a display of extreme
emotion (verbal outburst) that some US practitioners refers to as ‘Going Into
Excess’. ‘Going into excess’ might not be bad, after all – but seeks to
establish the degree to which individuals wish to defend their stance on
particular issues. In fact, a number of organisations deliberately introduce
conflict. This might be achieved through the employment of individuals of strong
personality. who have other characteristics that are at variance with those of
the pre-existing group. One positive effect of this strategy is that it reduces
the likelihood of groupthink – where the group is likely to make ineffective
decisions – improving the organisation’s overall decision-making process.
Conflict might also be introduced through various team development activities.
While conflict has a generally positive effect on organisational
functioning, if it is left unmanaged it might have disastrous consequences. This
means that conflict is allowed to persist, resulting in the impairment of role
performance. As effective conflict management suggests, conflict should be dealt
with in such a way that role conflict is avoided. The following scenario
is an example of conflict manifesting in role conflict. How should the manager
and supervisor have addressed the situation, so as to avert role conflict? How
would you address the current situation?
THE SUPERMARKET CHECKOUT
A
supermarket checkout, Deidre, has been faced with the challenge of meeting the
expectations of her manager and supervisor, in two related segments, her
colleagues and accountants in others, respectively. Since she started four weeks
ago, she was faced with the prospect of pleasing her colleagues and others and
dissatisfying her superiors, or satisfying the expectations of her superiors and
disappoints the other internal members of her role set. She chose the latter -
who were quite aware of the situation - because of the implications that her
behaviour has on her continued employment.
When Deidre’ arrives at work one morning, she was accosted by her colleagues
(other checkouts) and accused of ‘showing them up’ by doing the following
things:
·
Arriving at work much ahead of schedule
·
Remaining behind to receive the accountants’ report regarding the
taking of the day
·
Sending Money to the cash office more frequently than they do
·
Keeping her uniform neat and tidy.
Deidre’ was extremely upset but tried to forget the incident and took up her
position as usual. She maintained her usual speed and, as was characteristic of
her, was courteous to customers. However, about four hours later, a few minutes
before her lunch-break, she remembered the encounter - while checking a
customer’s purchase. She went completely motionless, for an observable period,
to the expressed annoyance of queuing customers. She returned from her lunch
break, feeling somewhat relieved. However, she checked 20% less customers and
handled 30% less transaction than her daily average. This undesirable situation
persisted for approximately 3 weeks.
The
supermarket manager, having noticed the difference in Deidre's performance,
summoned her to a meeting, during which she gave her a verbal warning. The
manager having exhibited no understanding of her explanation and her feeling
that she had no support, Deidre's performance got gradually worse, to the extent
that she was brought before a disciplinary panel.
|
|