Register now or log in to join your professional community.
When you talk with subordinates, you know his viewpoint and you can accommodate his view point in resolving the issue. If it is not possible to accommodate his viewpoint, still discuss with him thoroughly and explain to him why his viewpoint could not be accommodated within the rules of the organization. In all cases, dialogues are very important to resolve the issue.
The benefit we can get different point of views and prospective to see any problem and also different options for the resolution of one problem.
Further by including the subordinates they will be motivated and will not feel deprived and hence team work and better productivity will be obtained.
Such problem situations abound in the day-to-day life of organizations. No one gets hurt as long as there is mutual trust up and down the hierarchy. Nonetheless, events like these place the subordinate at a disadvantage if the superior proves untrustworthy and if, at the time of the act itself, it is the subordinate who must make the critical choice.
To seek explanations of what the superior wants or to stay uncertain about the superior’s expectations and to risk misinterpretation. Delegating authority so that both the superior and the subordinate are comfortable is critical to the overall relationship. Even then, a certain amount of tension can be expected to reappear because conditions frequently change. The accessibility of each party to the other may change as one person begins to travel more or moves to a new office. New projects may lend themselves to different patterns of delegation.
The subordinate who copes with these changes by regularly seeking clarification of what the superior expects increases his ability to sense what results the superior really wants. The subordinate can thus develop clear ideas about what to do when unforeseen events arise. He can enjoy open-ended assignments and at the same time feel good about taking issues to a superior that either cannot or should not be handled alone.
Seeking clarification about expectations as conditions change can, however, be a threatening process for a subordinate. New conditions may cause the superior to demand more delegation than the subordinate is ready for, triggering anxiety and self-doubt, which can lead to ineffective job performance. Certain situations may cause the superior to tighten control, leaving an independently inclined subordinate with a sense of being boxed in. Thus second-guessing the superior’s changing expectations and avoiding direct clarification may be seen as the best available strategy. The most common results of such an approach are misunderstandings that lead to poor performance and misgivings on the part of all concerned.
For example; when the subordinate was out establishing new divisions, communication was sporadic and focused on critical results. When he returned to headquarters, however, communication was continuous and dealt with operating details. Out in the field he had been delegated clear-cut matters involving technology and costs. Back at headquarters, where differences in the management styles of the two men were more apparent, the president also monitored and controlled the vice president’s operating style. Clearly, each man’s personal growth and changing developmental needs were adding fuel to the fire. The various changes led to a situation in which the subordinate thought his autonomy unfairly reduced, and yet he was unwilling in the end to confront his superior about this.
Most managers value initiative in their subordinates for achieving the organization’s goals and developing as individual contributors, but they vary considerably in how they distinguish between initiative that supports their work and initiative that is competitive. The latter breeds competition in return, and unless the subordinate has other powerful supporters, he or she is likely to lose out because of the superior’s power.
e.g. A subordinate who works at taking the initiative until he finds areas where it is welcome can feel free to make suggestions that will fit in with his own aspirations without fear of being blocked.
When he fears that taking the initiative will be fruitless or will invoke retaliation, the subordinate is likely to shy away from such behavior and also to take the blame for failures that arise from poor guidance. This pattern may heighten his feelings of dependence and encourage him to refrain from making suggestions when he could indeed be helpful. The superior thus sets the direction without the benefit of the subordinate’s input. Deciding whether to take the initiative or to rely on the superior for setting new directions is especially difficult for a subordinate whose talents are rapidly developing and who many people are beginning to identify as a valuable resource. Then the risks of arousing competitive feelings in the superior and the chances of finding new opportunities the subordinate would like to exploit are both on the rise. Consider the case of a personnel manager who had completed a training program in organization development and was just putting his new skills to work. Whenever a subordinate has an opportunity to increase his own status at the expense of the superior, this dilemma arises, yet change and innovation on the part of both are critical to the success of any organization.
Subordinates who view their own skills as adequate compared with the skills of others at their level are likely to learn from feedback concerning their performance. They can also feel free to ask for feedback at appropriate times. They welcome challenging new tasks and expect rewards for good performance. Their interest in how the superior views their skills encourages collaboration on mapping out career development steps.
Subordinates who have doubts about their skills are apt to avoid feedback, to misinterpret performance criteria, and to be devastated by critical evaluations. They are also unlikely to initiate new activities that would improve their skills. The subordinate’s desire to retrace steps or elect safe courses of action for fear of falling farther behind adversely affects the relationship with the superior.
The decision about how open to be with the superior about competence comes up whenever subordinates face yearly reviews, budget analyses, contract decisions, progress meetings, or major promotion points. These periods are especially stressful because of the rewards and punishments that can result. Viewing oneself as competent and being open to evaluation and feedback facilitates in-depth review, but poor evaluations can harm an entire career. Classifying oneself as out of the running beforehand or as not in a position to be given a fair hearing can save face with colleagues and reduce emotional turmoil, but the chances of being seen as unwilling to cooperate may also be heightened.
Unfortunately, this dilemma is frequently complicated by organization politics. While avoiding negative evaluation is sometimes legitimate, it can become intertwined with avoiding evaluation by those whom subordinates incorrectly assume are biased against them.
Consider the case of a project leader in an engineering firm who developed a very close relationship with the senior partner, the person most responsible for hiring him. Aware that several others had opposed his selection, the project leader generally avoided contact with them but invited evaluation from the partner. Shortly before a major promotion decision, the senior partner died of a heart attack. The other partners felt quite justified in passing the project leader over because of their past relationship with him.
Being passed over put the manager at a disadvantage with competing colleagues. His relationship with the other partners never did improve, and his performance declined. Eventually he left the company for another position.
One critical task facing every subordinate is deciding what kind of image to project of the superior. This task is addressed partly by the ways in which the previously discussed dilemmas are resolved.The subordinate’s dilemma whether to define himself as similar in approach and outlook to the superior or as uniquely different hinges on the extent to which the superior is an attractive role model.
On sum, Unlike the other dilemmas, we do not see any of the choices in this dilemma as necessarily ideal for the organization. A distinctly different identity for the subordinate compared with the superior’s may be just as valuable to the organization as a highly similar one, depending on the circumstances. Likewise, neither choice is necessarily ideal for the subordinate. At one point in his career, he may find it especially beneficial to identify with his superior and to use him as an important role model. At other times, the subordinate may find that differentiating himself clearly from his superior is important for improving his own self-image. Nonetheless, the dilemma is an important one because its resolution can affect the overall tone of the relationship. To see oneself as different from the superior encourages an emphasis on contrast. To identify with the superior emphasizes like-mindedness and invites a teacher-student type of relationship. What is important for the subordinate is to clarify his choice early in the relationship so that he can make the most out of it and resist pulls in the opposite direction.
Thanks
Fully agree with the answer given by Mr. Fazlur
