CRM Project Assignment Paper

CRM Project Assignment Paper

CRM Project Assignment Paper

APA  Format Plagiarism free

Based on the CRM work you have done throughout this course, you are now called on to act as a consultant to apply your knowledge to other industries that have an existing CRM program that would be beneficial to employees and organizations to reduce human error and improve employee efficiency. CRM Project Assignment Paper

ORDER ORIGINAL, PLAGIARISM-FREE ESSAY PAPERS HERE

Select one agency that employs a CRM program.

Research how this agency employed a CRM program in a similar or different way than was identified in the aviation article from Week 2.

Write a 1,400- to 1,750-word paper in which you provide evidence of how this CRM program was implemented. Include the following in your response:

  • Distinguish between various team concepts as they relate to performance during and after this training program.
  • Explain the difference between leaders and managers, as well as the influence and power they may have on the success of this program.
  • Evaluate at least two theories of leadership and the role that leaders utilizing these theories play in facilitating this program.
  • Analyze the general effects on the organization that may result from this program, referencing the concepts of organizational development and various organizational theories.
  • attachment

    psy435week5instructions.docx

    Based on the CRM work you have done throughout this course, you are now called on to act as a consultant to apply your knowledge to other industries that have an existing CRM program that would be beneficial to employees and organizations to reduce human error and improve employee efficiency. CRM Project Assignment Paper

    Select one agency that employs a CRM program.

    Research how this agency employed a CRM program in a similar or different way than was identified in the aviation article from Week 2.

    Write a 1,400- to 1,750-word paper in which you provide evidence of how this CRM program was implemented. Include the following in your response:

    · Distinguish between various team concepts as they relate to performance during and after this training program.

    · Explain the difference between leaders and managers, as well as the influence and power they may have on the success of this program.

    · Evaluate at least two theories of leadership and the role that leaders utilizing these theories play in facilitating this program.

    · Analyze the general effects on the organization that may result from this program, referencing the concepts of organizational development and various organizational theories.

    Apa format

    Plagiarism free

  • attachment

    psy435week5theories.docx

    The Leader Behavior Approach

    The leader behavior approach is concerned with what leaders do rather than what their personal characteristics might be. Although leader behavior studies have dealt with specific behaviors, most have concentrated on leadership styles. A leadership style is a cluster of related behaviors that represent an approach to dealing with subordinates. For example, some supervisors prefer to allow subordinates to have input into decisions that affect them. Such a style of asking advice and having discussions about issues is called participative. Other supervisors do not involve subordinates in decisions. Rather, they make the decision and announce it to the group. This style in which subordinates are given little input is called autocratic. CRM Project Assignment Paper

    The most influential research program to study leader behaviors is the Ohio State Leadership Studies, which were begun in 1945 (Stogdill, 1963). This series of studies was designed to uncover the effects of specific supervisory behaviors on subordinates. The Ohio State researchers began by collecting about 1,800 critical incidents that represented either very good or very bad instances of supervisory behavior. They used these incidents as the basis for developing a 150-item questionnaire on leader behavior. The questionnaire was administered to several samples of employees, who answered each item about their supervisors. A complex statistical procedure called factor analysis was used to see if the 150 items could be reduced to a smaller number of underlying dimensions of leadership. The dimensions, which were based on the intercorrelations among the 150 items, showed that two aspects of leadership were represented, which they called consideration and initiating structure.

    Consideration  is the amount of concern that supervisors show for the happiness and welfare of their subordinates. It includes friendly and supportive behavior that makes the workplace pleasant for subordinates.  Initiating structure  is the extent to which the supervisor defines his or her own role and makes clear what is expected of subordinates. It includes assigning tasks to subordinates and scheduling the work. One of the major contributions of the Ohio State Leadership Studies was the development of scales to assess these dimensions. The most widely used is the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), which is completed by subordinates about their supervisor. Table 13.2 contains four items that assess consideration and four items that assess initiating structure. CRM Project Assignment Paper

    TABLE 13.2 Eight Items From the Consideration and Initiating Structure Scales of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), Form XII

    Source: From Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire–Form XII, by R. M. Stogdill, 1963, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

    Consideration Items
    He or she is friendly and approachable.
    He or she does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group.
    He or she puts suggestions made by the group into operation.
    He or she treats all members of the group as his or her equals.
    Initiating Structure Items
    He or she lets group members know what is expected of them.
    He or she encourages the use of uniform procedures.
    He or she tries out his or her ideas in the group.
    He or she makes his or her attitudes clear to the group.

    Note: Items were modified to eliminate the generic “he.”

    Many studies have used the LBDQ in an attempt to discover the effects of leader behavior on subordinates. A good example is Fleishman and Harris’s (1962) study of production workers in a truck manufacturing plant. Data were collected from subordinates of 57 supervisors with the LBDQ. The grievance and turnover rates were also collected for each supervisor’s work group. Grievances can be considered behavioral measures of dissatisfaction with conditions of work. In unionized and government organizations, grievances require hearings that can consume considerable employee time. An excessive grievance rate can destroy the efficiency of a work group because people are spending time in unproductive ways.

    Fleishman and Harris (1962) found that the mean LBDQ scores for the supervisors are related to the grievance and turnover rates in their departments. Supervisors with low scores on consideration and high scores on initiating structure had higher turnover rates and more grievances among subordinates than supervisors who were high on consideration and low on initiating structure. The supervisors scoring lowest on consideration had a turnover rate that was about four times higher than the supervisors scoring highest (Figures 13.2 and 13.3).

     

    Figure 13.2  Turnover rate as a result of both the consideration and the initiating structure of supervisors. From “Patterns of Leadership Behavior Related to Employee Grievances and Turnover,” by E. A. Fleishman and E. F. Harris, 1962, Personnel Psychology, 15, 43–56. CRM Project Assignment Paper

     

    Figure 13.3  Grievance rate as a result of both the consideration and the initiating structure of supervisors. From “Patterns of Leadership Behavior Related to Employee Grievances and Turnover,” by E. A. Fleishman and E. F. Harris, 1962, Personnel Psychology, 15, 43–56.

    Although it is tempting to interpret these results as a demonstration of the effects of leader behavior on important subordinate behaviors, there are two major difficulties in doing so. First, the LBDQ might not be a good indicator of supervisory behavior and might be telling us as much about subordinates as their supervisors. Several studies have attempted to find out what subordinate reports about their supervisors really mean. It has been found that the reports are affected by the biases and stereotypes of the subordinates. In a series of studies, college students were asked to view a videotape of a supervisor interacting with subordinates. At random, all subjects who watched the same tape were told that the supervisor was rated either high or low in performance. Subjects who were told that the supervisor was a good performer rated him differently on the LBDQ than subjects who were told he was a poor performer (Lord, Binning, Rush, & Thomas, 1978).

    The second problem concerns drawing causal conclusions from data collected at one time in a cross-sectional research design (see Chapter 2). We cannot be certain from a study such as Fleishman and Harris’s (1962) if the grievance and turnover rates are caused by supervisor behavior or if supervisor behavior is caused by the grievance and turnover rate. Studies have shown that supervisor behavior can be affected by subordinate behavior (Lowin & Craig, 1968), particularly job performance. Yukl (1989) concluded that a reciprocal relationship probably exists between supervisor style and subordinate behavior. A supervisor whose subordinates are filing many grievances might become angry and reduce consideration behavior. This might make subordinates more angry and lead them to file more grievances, which will lead to even less consideration, and so on. These sorts of reciprocal processes have rarely been studied in I/O psychology. CRM Project Assignment Paper

    In the United States, participatory practices have been linked to both job performance and job satisfaction, but these linkages are not always strong (Wagner, 1994). Part of the reason for small effects might have to do with the areas in which employees are allowed to participate. Sagie and Koslowsky (1994) found larger relations between perceived participation and job satisfaction when the participation involved deciding how to implement a change at work rather than whether or not to implement it in the first place. They concluded that it is important to consider the kinds of decisions appropriate for subordinate participation.

    Participation has been shown to work in several studies. In others, however, it has not had positive effects. For example, Bragg and Andrews (1973) conducted a study in which participants worked in two of three departments. At the beginning of the study, the supervisor of the hospital laundry department changed from an autocratic to a participative style. Over the next 18 months, there were positive effects on attendance, job performance (a 42% increase), and job satisfaction. This supervisory approach was then successfully introduced in the medical records department, but it could not be in the nursing department. The reasons why participatory styles sometimes succeed and sometimes fail are complex and may relate to the situations under which they are tried. This brings us to the basic idea of contingency theory: The situation interacts with leader characteristics and leader behavior. CRM Project Assignment Paper

    Fiedler’s Contingency Theory

    The trait approach assumes that certain characteristics of people will make them good leaders. The behavior approach presumes that certain leader behaviors will be effective, regardless of the situation.  Fiedler’s contingency theory  states that leadership is a function of both the person and the situation. One characteristic of the leader and three characteristics of the situation determine leadership effectiveness.

    The theory begins with the characteristic of the leader, which Fiedler (1978) refers to as the motivational structure of the leader. The motivational structure is assessed with a self-report instrument called the  Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale . Although the name implies that it assesses the coworker, the scale actually measures a characteristic of the leader, not the subordinate. The LPC asks the leader to think about the person with whom he or she has had the most trouble working—that is, the coworker with whom he or she would least like to work. The leader then describes his or her least preferred coworker using a semantic differential scale (Osgood, Teannenbaum, & Suci, 1957). The LPC consists of 18 bipolar adjective items, and for each item the leader indicates which of the two words with opposite meanings best describes someone, such as pleasant versus unpleasant or friendly versus unfriendly. (Examples from the LPC scale appear in Table 13.3.)

    TABLE 13.3 Four Items From Fiedler’s Least Preferred Coworker Scale (LPC)

    Source: From “The Contingency Model and the Dynamics of the Leadership Process” (pp. 59–112), by F. E. Fiedler, 1978, in L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 11), New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Pleasant ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Unpleasant
    Friendly ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Unfriendly
    Rejecting ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Accepting
    Tense ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Relaxed

    Fiedler’s (1978) theory is also concerned with the situational variable of leader situational control. Situational control concerns the amount of power and influence the leader has over subordinates. It is the extent to which the supervisor’s actions will predictably lead to subordinate behavior. There are three characteristics of the leadership situation that comprise situational control: Leader-member relations is the extent to which subordinates get along with and support their supervisors. Task structure is the extent to which subordinate job tasks are clearly and specifically defined. Position power refers to the amount of power and influence that the supervisor has, including the ability to give out rewards and punishments. A supervisor with good leader-member relations, highly structured tasks for subordinates, and high position power will be in a situation of high control. A supervisor with poor leader-member relations, low task structure for subordinates, and low position power will be in a situation of low control.

    According to Fiedler’s (1978) theory, the LPC of the supervisor determines the situations in which he or she will perform well. Individuals who are low on LPC do well under both very high and very low situational control. Individuals who are high on LPC will do best under conditions of moderate situational control. Take, for example, the situation in which the leader doesn’t get along well with subordinates, the subordinates have unstructured tasks, and the leader has little power. This is an unfavorable situation, and the low LPC leader would be expected to be more effective than the high LPC leader. However, if the situation is moderately favorable, where relations are poor, but task structure is high and the leader has moderate power, the high LPC person should be more effective than the low LPC person. Figure 13.4 illustrates how supervisor performance is a function of situational control for individuals high and low in LPC.

     

    Figure 13.4  Group performance as a result of both the situational control and the LPC of the leader. Adapted from “The Contingency Model and the Dynamics of the Leadership Process,” by F. E. Fiedler, 1978, in L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 11), New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Research on contingency theory has provided mixed support for its validity, and Fiedler certainly has his critics. Two meta-analyses combined the results of many tests of the theory (Peters, Hartke, & Pohlmann, 1985; Strube & Garcia, 1981). Both found that leader performance was a joint function of LPC and situational control, although the predictions of the theory were not completely upheld. What is not clear at the present time is exactly why LPC and situational control interact. The major difficulty is that no one, not even Fiedler, is quite sure what LPC represents. LPC was intended to measure something about leader motivation, but it is not clear that motivation is assessed. Fiedler (1978) states that low LPC leaders are more concerned with getting tasks done than with having good relationships with subordinates, whereas high LPC leaders have the opposite motivations, being more concerned with having good relationships with subordinates than with getting the job done. At this time, all we can say for sure is that the LPC assesses some unknown but important characteristic of leaders.

    Although the theory states that the situation determines the best leader characteristics, Fiedler (1978) does not believe that a supervisor should attempt to adapt his or her style to the particular situation. He believes that supervisors should modify the situation to be appropriate to their own leadership style. To this end, he has developed a training program called  Leader Match . Fiedler summarized the results of several field experiments comparing Leader Match–trained supervisors with untrained controls. The results showed better group performance for the trained supervisors. Some question has been raised, however, about whether Leader Match training results in leaders changing the situation according to theory or whether the results of the Leader Match research are due to other factors (Jago & Ragan, 1986).

    Despite the criticisms of the theory, Fiedler has been one of the most influential people in the study of leadership. His major contribution has been to show us that leadership involves the complex interaction of leader characteristics with the leadership situation. His work has been extended by theorists who have developed more complex contingency theories. One of these is path-goal theory, which we discuss next.

    Path-Goal Theory

    Path-goal theory  (House & Mitchell, 1974) is a contingency theory that is more complex than Fiedler’s. It posits that subordinate job performance and job satisfaction result from the interplay of situational characteristics, subordinate characteristics, and supervisor style. The basic idea, which is based on expectancy theory (see Chapter 8), is that the supervisor can enhance the motivation and job satisfaction of subordinates by providing rewards for good job performance and by making it easier for subordinates to achieve their task goals. Supervisors can accomplish this by adopting one of four supervisory styles, the efficacy of which is determined by situational and subordinate characteristics. The four supervisory styles are:

    1. Supportive style. This style is similar to the Ohio State Leadership Studies’ style of consideration. It involves showing concern for the needs and welfare of subordinates.

    2. Directive style. This style is similar to the Ohio State Leadership Studies’ style of initiating structure. It involves structuring job tasks for subordinates and letting them know what is expected.

    3. Participative style. This style involves seeking input from subordinates and allowing them to participate in decision making.

    4. Achievement style. This style involves emphasizing achievement and good performance. It includes setting challenging task goals and emphasizing high performance standards.

    Subordinate characteristics include personality variables, such as locus of control and self-perceived ability. Locus of control is the extent to which subordinates believe that they can control rewards in their lives. A person with an internal locus of control believes that he or she is able to control rewards. A person with an external locus of control believes that rewards are controlled by others or by outside forces. Self-perceived ability is the extent to which the subordinate believes he or she is capable of doing the task well. It is similar to self-efficacy, which was discussed in Chapter 8, but it is specific to the particular task at hand. Situational characteristics include aspects of tasks, such as dangerousness, repetitiveness, and structure.

    House and Mitchell (1974) derived a series of hypotheses based on the basic ideas of the theory. These hypotheses describe how certain supervisory styles affect subordinates under certain conditions. For example:

    1. When tasks are boring, dangerous, stressful, or tedious, a supportive style will be the most appropriate. Subordinates who must deal with these situations will have their anxiety lowered and their self-esteem raised by a supportive supervisor.

    2. When tasks are unstructured and subordinates are inexperienced, a directive style will be most appropriate because subordinates will be uncertain about what to do. A directive supervisor will increase subordinates’ effort and job satisfaction by telling them what is expected and what they should do.

    Unfortunately researchers have focused attention on only a few of the hypotheses of path-goal theory, particularly the second hypothesis given here. Although some of this research has supported the theory (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Ahearne, & Bommer, 1995), many of the findings are inconsistent (Wofford & Liska, 1993). In part, the inconsistency may be due to methodological weaknesses in some of the studies. Another possibility is that some of the propositions are not quite correct.

    Keller (1989) noted that not all individuals are bothered by lack of structure on a job and that in fact some people might prefer it. People who prefer unstructured tasks should be more satisfied with a low-structure job and would respond negatively to a directive supervisory style. Samples of employees from four organizations were assessed on subordinate need for structure, job performance, job satisfaction, and directive supervisory style (Keller, 1989). The results are consistent with predictions that subordinates who have a high need for structure respond favorably to directive supervision (see the Research in Detail box). Keller’s study suggests that one of the propositions should be modified to take subordinate personality into account.

    RESEARCH IN DETAIL

    One of the hypotheses of path-goal theory is that when task structure is low, initiating structure by the supervisor will result in subordinate satisfaction. In other words, when subordinates are unsure about what is expected, clarification by the supervisor will be appreciated. Keller (1989) noted that research support for this hypothesis has been inconsistent across studies. He reasoned that a mistake of path-goal theory is assuming that all employees find lack of structure unpleasant. His hypothesis is that the subordinate’s need for clarity determines his or her reaction to initiating structure in a job with low structure.

    In this study, a survey was conducted among professionals in research and development (R&D) organizations. Because this work involves discovering new knowledge and technologies, an R&D job can have little structure. Respondents to the survey completed scales to assess the extent to which they need and prefer clarity on the job, the initiating structure of their supervisor, and their job satisfaction.

    Data analyses showed that Keller’s hypothesis is correct. Those individuals with a high need for clarity are more satisfied with high-initiating structure than low-initiating structure. Individuals with a low need for clarity are more satisfied with low-initiating structure than high-initiating structure. This study suggests that supervisors should consider the personality of each subordinate in deciding the most appropriate supervision method. CRM Project Assignment Paper

    Source: From “A Test of the Path-Goal Theory of Leadership With Need for Clarity as a Moderator in Research and Development Organizations,” by R. T. Keller, 1989, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 208–212.

    Future research will be needed to show which of the original House and Mitchell (1974) hypotheses can be supported. It seems likely, in light of Keller’s (1989) findings, that new hypotheses involving the interplay of situations, subordinates, and supervisors will be developed. One implication of Keller’s findings is that different supervisory approaches might be necessary with different subordinates. This brings us to the leader-member exchange theory of leadership, which is concerned with the interactions of each subordinate-supervisor dyad or pair.

    Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

    The  leader-member exchange (LMX) theory  (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975) focuses on the subordinate-supervisor dyad rather than on the supervisor and work group. Dansereau et al. argued that one of the major limitations of most leadership research is its implicit assumptions that each supervisor’s group of subordinates is sufficiently homogeneous to justify studying it as a unit and that each supervisor adopts the same style across all subordinates. On the contrary, they propose that supervisors treat individual subordinates differently.

    Dansereau et al. (1975) discussed two types of relationships that develop between supervisors and subordinates. The  cadre  or  in-group  consists of subordinates who are trusted and influential members of the work group. The supervisor treats them with consideration and adopts a participative style with them. The  hired hands  or  out-group , by contrast, is subordinates who are supervised with a directive style and are given little input into decisions. These relationships evolve over time, with characteristics of subordinates affecting the category in which they find themselves. To become part of the cadre, a subordinate must be perceived as dependable and hardworking. In return for cadre status, a subordinate must be prepared to exert effort on the job beyond the minimum expected.

    In their research, Dansereau et al. (1975) found that within work groups supervisors had two distinct groups in terms of how much participation was allowed. Members of the cadre were more satisfied with their jobs, believed they had better relationships with supervisors, and were less likely to quit than the hired hands. Care must be taken, however, in concluding that the satisfaction and turnover differences were the result of supervisor treatment. It is likely that supervisor behavior toward each subordinate was as much a function of the subordinate’s job performance as it was a cause of that performance (Bauer & Green, 1996). CRM Project Assignment Paper

    One contribution of the leader-member exchange approach is that it focuses attention on the importance of individual relationships within each supervisor-subordinate dyad. The idea was the basis of an intervention study in which supervisors were trained to enhance their relationships with each subordinate. Graen, Novak, and Sommerkamp (1982) conducted a field experiment in which one group of supervisors was trained in leader-member exchange. The training was intended to help supervisors improve their relationships with subordinates. Each trained supervisor had meetings with individual subordinates to discuss work issues and the working relationship between them. The subordinates of the trained supervisors subsequently had better job performance and higher job satisfaction than a control group in which supervisors were not trained.

    Research has shown that the quality of LMX relationships, as perceived by subordinates, is associated with several important work variables. For example, subordinates who report good LMX relationships with their supervisors are rated higher in job performance and organizational citizenship behavior by those supervisors than are subordinates who report poor LMX relationships (Petruzzello, Gapin, Snook, & Smith, 2009; Radloff, 1977; Vidyarthi, Liden, Anand, Erdogan, & Ghosh, 2010). In their meta-analysis of 79 studies, Gerstner and Day (1997) showed that individuals who have good relationships with their supervisors tend to have higher job satisfaction, are more committed to their employers, and perceive the job as less stressful than individuals with poor relationships with supervisors. Taken together, these studies suggest that good relationships between supervisor and subordinate are important because they benefit employees and organizations.

    There have been criticisms and limitations noted about the LMX theory of leadership. First, differential treatment of subordinates within a work group can be destructive (Yukl, 1989). Equity theory, as discussed in Chapter 8, describes how employees can react negatively to unequal treatment. The higher turnover rate and lower job satisfaction of the hired hands in the Dansereau et al. (1975) study might well be interpreted as a response to inequity. Schriesheim (1980) pointed out that supervisors often direct influence attempts at entire work groups at one time rather than treating each individual differently. She believed that a focus on both work groups and individual dyads makes the most sense for understanding leadership. LMX theory has helped focus attention on the relationship between subordinate and supervisor. It also has led to an understanding that supervisors do not act the same way with all subordinates. CRM Project Assignment Paper

    Transformational Leadership Theory

    Transformational leadership theory deals with leaders who have considerable and unusual influence over their followers; in other words, they are  charismatic leaders . It is in some ways a return to the trait approach because it focuses on characteristics of leaders in relation to effectiveness. However, it differs from prior approaches in going beyond linking traits to performance and in attempting to determine how leaders affect their followers. A  transformational leader  is one who leads by inspiring others to adopt high goals and strive to achieve them. He or she articulates a vision for followers and encourages them to pursue it. Gardner and Avolio (1998) explained that certain leaders are able to convince followers of their competence and the importance of a vision. They engage in behaviors that make them appear to be creative, innovative, powerful, and trustworthy. Much of the leader’s influence derives from beliefs by followers that only by following the leader will they be able to achieve the vision, such as making the company profitable. Leaders like Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr., are examples of transformational leaders. King’s vision of a free society reflected in his “I have a dream” speech on August 28, 1963, in Washington, D.C., is an example of a vision statement that inspires.

    Bass and Riggio (2006) argued that transformational leadership has four components. Idealized influence is the extent to which leaders encourage followers with their statements and model high standards of behavior. Inspirational motivation is providing a vision, such as King’s dream. Intellectual stimulation is encouraging followers to question the status quo and think of better ways to do things. Individualized consideration is paying attention to the development and well-being of followers. Taken together, this suggests that transformational leaders inspire by articulating a vision for the group, encouraging and supporting followers, and setting an example to follow. CRM Project Assignment Paper

    Research on transformational leadership shows that it relates to several subordinate variables that are important for organizational functioning. For example, individuals who perceive their supervisors to be transformational tend to be high on job performance (Keller, 2006; Yang, Spector, Chang, Gallant-Roman, & Powell, 2010), job satisfaction (Judge & Piccolo, 2004), organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, and perceptions of justice (Pillai, Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999). Furthermore, although it might seem that transformational leadership is innate, researchers have been successful at training people to exhibit the behaviors. For example, Towler (2003) conducted a laboratory experiment in which business students were randomly assigned to receive transformational training versus control training. They subsequently delivered a role-play speech to a supposed group of employees. Those who received the transformational training were rated by trained observers to be higher on transformational leadership than the controls. Barling, Weber, and Kelloway (1996) were able to successfully train bank managers to be more transformational and showed that this training had an impact on the financial performance of their branches.

  • attachment

    psy435GROUPANDTEAMPERFORMANCE.docx