7 | Information Systems homework help
Leadership Paradox and Inter-team Relations
A. What is the leadership paradox? Give some reasons why a leader can encounter difficulty in newly formed teams or groups using a participative management system. Support your discussion with at least two (2) external sources.
B. Present a discussion of the strategies for encouraging participative management in the workforce, and how to implement each of these strategies. Support your discussion with at least two (2) external sources.
C. What serious biases or misassumptions do groups that are involved in inter-team conflict sometimes experience? How do these biases and prejudices affect the ability of teams to accomplish their goals? Support your discussion with at least two (2) external sources.
Specific Instructions:
See class discussion/posting requirements.
Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.
Respond to at least 3 of your colleagues’ postings in one or more of the following ways:
• Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence or research.
• Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
• Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Campbellsville University Library
• Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
• Make suggestions based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
• Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.
Return to this Discussion several times to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of the comments your colleagues made.
Response-1(Karthik)
The leadership paradox entails the point at which a group needs a pioneer however the nearness of a pioneer debilitates the self-sufficiency of the group. Leadership paradox is important since it frequently challenges the part of a pioneer bringing about negative responses to directing, protecting from change, part struggle, refusal of surrender control, the worry of seeming to need capacity and uneasiness of professional stability. To this effect, the group leader can face the existing circumstances with the recently framed group when the term coordinated and understand leadership hypothesis.
Many organizational and structural changes are common with new leadership. Newly formed team leadership also brings many advantages and disadvantages to it. Participatory (participative) management is a phenomenon where employee’s opinion is also considered and taken into account for decision making. It is based on the notion that when the employees invest their time and work hard at the workplace, he/she should be given an opportunity to participate in the decision-making activities such as setting goals, determining work schedules and making suggestions. Participative management, however, involves more than letting employees take part in making decisions. It involves management treating, considering and respecting the employee’s ideas and suggestions. Four processes affect participation; they are:
1. Information sharing: This is concerned with keeping employees informed about the economic status of the company.
2. Training: This involves increasing the skill levels of employees and contributing development chances that allow them to use new skills to make effective decisions regarding the organization as a whole.
3. Employee decision making: This can come in various forms and can vary from determining work schedules to deciding on budgets or processes.
4. Rewards: This should be linked to suggestions, ideas, and performance.
Intergroup conflict occurs when two or more workgroups of any type disagree with each other. Workplace disputes and differences between groups or within a group may arise because of misconception, disagreements, intercultural differences, poor social exchange, poor communication or various other situations. Competitiveness may also cause unhealthy conflicts opposing focus groups.
References:
Hordos, L. (2018, June 06). What Are the Causes of Intergroup Conflict? Retrieved from https://bizfluent.com/info-8463616-causes-intergroup-conflict.html
Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A Longitudinal Study of Team Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness. Group & Organization Management,34(2), 170-205. doi:10.1177/1059601108331218
PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Or-Pr/Participative-Management.html
Greenfield, W.M. “Decision Making and Employee Engagement.” Employment Relations Today 31, no. 2 (2004): 13–24.
Response-2(RINI)
Leadership paradox is being an effective leader at times gives autonomy / freedom to team and also encouraging a team member at some times to lead. To be the natural leader according to Forbes article you need to have 5 paradoxes:
1. A good leader will learn from failure and will not take it negative.
2. A good leader will not be arrogant and egoistic.
3. A leader will learn from taking initiative and innovative
4. A leader will try for the growth of team and to enhance the team knowledge
5. A leader will not force his or her decision on team , but will participate team and take consensus decision which will bring team unity
If leader is using participative management system sometimes there are the chances of team conflict because of ego issue between any members of team. Everybody’s decision cannot be accepted. So especially when a new team is there they may not accept the leader if they think he or she does not possess the qualities that a leader should have.
When it comes to participative management style I encourage that more than autocratic or Hitler style which is more authoritative giving no democracy. Participative management brings co-operation and support. I used strategy of delegating the task and responsibility and participative decision making strategy in a company where I was working as an HR lead. So I noticed that helped in reducing work pressure and makes ones task easy. In participative management every employees feel like they are part of the company and give them feeling of being valued. Every the outcome of decision making is participative so one person does not get accountable for it and get stress out. So a participative management gives leader more room and relief and to work on important part to make team stronger.
Sometime in team inter group conflict occurs or kind of debate especially in bringing some change in a company which may be very small but there are few member who encourages changes and few of them resist. So that affects overall team atmosphere and positivity. And a team lead has to handle the situation which is not that easy.
References:
· Farrell, M. (2018). Leadership Reflections: Leadership Paradoxes. Journal of Library Administration, 58(2), 166-173. doi:10.1080/01930826.2017.1412712
· Waldman, D. A., & Bowen, D. E. (2016). Learning to be a paradox-savvy leader. The Academy Of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 316-327. doi:10.5465/amp.2015.0070
· Park, J., Lee, K., & Kim, P. S. (2016). Participative Management and Perceived Organizational Performance: The Moderating Effects of Innovative Organizational Culture. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(2), 316-336. doi:10.1080/15309576.2015.1108773
· Jago, A. G. (2017). A contrarian view: Culture and participative management. European Management Journal, 35(5), 645-650. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2016.10.001
Respone-3(Anurag)
The conundrum is additionally part of the everyday charge of Christian pioneers. While we are dependable to the associations and houses of worship we lead, our definitive responsibility is to God himself. (Baumgartner, 2011) Any pioneer who has obsessed about such issues realizes that the strain is some of the time horrendous. A comparative strain emerges when pioneers need to choose how to explore between watching over people and the necessities of the network. In the meantime, isolated countries vouch for the way that driving in a period of progress doesn’t involve simple answers that overlook the intricate substances holy places and associations confront each day. We trust that the appearance in this diary Wi-Fi empowers you to live more productively with the truth of oddity in Christian initiative. (Peus, Braun, and Schyns, 2016)
B) This developing detach between existing exact research and ebb and flow issues in medicinal services administration speaks to an essential hole in the writing. In this way, the reason for our investigation was to inspect the effect of participative-administration worker observations on four basic representative level results: client benefit, restorative blunders, burnout, and turnover goals. With that in mind, the investigation drew on a vast example of representatives spread crosswise over more than 300 divisions in an expansive medicinal services association situated in the southeastern United States. (Angermeier, Dunford, Boss, Smith, and Boss, 2009)
This is an exceptionally disputable issue, yet numerous trustworthy sources guarantee there has happened a huge weakening in levels of representative occupation fulfillment and assurance, alongside an orderly ascent in individual maladjustment, social estrangement, and even psychosomatic disease. Usually called attention to that these indications of individual worry thus cause considerable expenses to associations through higher work force turnover rates, non-appearance, lateness, attack, work struggle, and other such issues. As of late, numerous experts have guaranteed that the present type of administration is likewise in charge of a related pattern toward declining levels of profitability, which is expensive for associations and the main consideration in the ceaseless ascent of swelling rates. The adequacy of representative support is borne out by the way that most of these countries have exhibited agreeable work relations and picks up in financial efficiency which frequently surpasses that of the United States. (Halal, and Brown, 1981)
C) We accommodate these two restricting lines of thought by presenting the inside power structure of groups as the key arbitrator that decides if between group strife diminishes or advances control battles inside groups. We hypothesize that while the basic destiny of individuals from libertarian groups makes them liable to join and pool assets when confronting a between-group struggle, the power contrasts in various leveled groups cause individuals to be diversely affected by the asset undermining between group strife, driving them to have alternate points of view and concerns, subsequently advancing inner battles about assets. Like this, such power battles are required to adversely influence group execution. We tried these speculations with a research facility investigation of 85 three-man transaction groups and a field investigation of 158 authoritative work groups, and find, of course, that an asset undermining between group strife advances execution diminishing force battles in various leveled groups. (At the point when between-group strife spirals into intra-group control battles, 2017)
Exploring the directing impact of shared authority may help settle the irregularity in past investigations. From one viewpoint, shared administration mirrors a between authoritative group’s circumstance where various colleagues take part in the initiative and are portrayed by basic communitarian leadership and shared obligation regarding results. It is observed to be a key factor affecting the peace making since this administration can help colleagues cooperate toward their common objectives without relinquishing their advantages. Then again, extraordinary to intra-authoritative groups, between hierarchical group should confront muddled clashes coming about because of incongruence of authoritative culture and objectives, control differentials. (Hu, Chen, Gu, Huang, and Liu, 2017)
References
Peus, C., Braun, S., & Schyns, B. (2016). Leadership Lessons From Compelling Contexts. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Halal, W. E., & Brown, B. S. (1981). Participative Management: Myth and Reality. California Management Review.
Hu, N., Chen, Z., Gu, J., Huang, S., & Liu, H. (2017). Conflict and creativity in inter-organizational teams. International Journal of Conflict Management.
