Psychology of managing organizational behavior of employees for their involvement and relationship with the leader

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Psychology of managing organizational behavior of employees for their involvement and relationship with the leader

Halynska Anhelina Viktorivna Ph.D., Associate Professor, Associate Professor of "Management department named after L.I. Mykhailova», Sumy National Agricultural University

Abstract

Most modern organizations in their work with personnel pay considerable attention to how to manage employee involvement and through what actions of management it can be increased.

The concept of engagement described back in the 90s of the twentieth century in the works of Kahn, was supplemented and developed over the past 30 years old, but has not changed significantly. According to the author of this term, engagement is a state of an employee characterized by the degree realizing his personal potential in the process of fulfilling his work role, as well as the degree of its active, cognitive and emotional expression in process of labor activity.

This paper will discuss analysis of the connection between the level of development of managerial competencies of a manager and involvement in the work of both himself and his subordinates.

The work examined the relationship between the involvement of employees at different levels in the organization and the level of development of the competencies of their managers; and differences between executive and employee engagement. The presence and extent of relationships were determined using correlation analysis, and differences were determined using assessment reliability of differences in mean values. The leadership competencies of Understanding the Business, Results Orientation, Collaboration and Developing Subordinates contribute to the engagement of subordinates. “Leadership”, “Initiative”, “Business Understanding”, “Interaction” is also interconnected with the leader's own involvement. "Planning" has the opposite effect relationship. It has been established that there are differences in the involvement of managers and employees.

There is a relationship between employee and manager engagement with the level of development of his competencies: some of the manager's competencies are associated with his high involvement and the involvement of his employees, some with low. Discovered connection between the levels of involvement of the manager and employees. Differences in some parameters of engagement between managers and employees were revealed.

Keywords: work engagement, work motivation, management competencies, staff satisfaction, organizational psychology.

Анотація

Психологія управління організаційною поведінкою співробітників щодо їх залученості та взаємовідносин з керівником

Галинська Ангеліна Вікторівна кандидат економічних наук, доцент, доцент кафедри «Менеджменту імені професора Л.І. Михайлової», Сумський національний аграрний університет

Більшість сучасних організацій у своїй роботі з персоналом приділяють значну увагу тому, як управляти залученістю співробітників і якими діями керівництва можна її підвищити.

Концепція залучення, описана ще в 90-х роках ХХ століття в роботах Кана, була доповнена і розвинена протягом останніх 30 років, але істотно не змінилася. На думку автора цього терміну, залученість - це стан працівника, що характеризується ступенем реалізації його особистісного потенціалу в процесі виконання трудової ролі, а також ступенем його активного, пізнавального та емоційного прояву в процесі трудової діяльності.

У даній роботі йтиметься про аналіз зв'язку між рівнем розвитку управлінських компетенцій керівника та залученням до роботи як його самого, так і його підлеглих.

У роботі досліджено взаємозв'язок між залученням працівників різних рівнів до організації та рівнем розвитку компетенцій їх керівників; і відмінності між залученням керівників і працівників. Наявність і ступінь зв'язків визначали за допомогою кореляційного аналізу, а відмінності - за допомогою оцінки достовірності відмінностей середніх значень. Лідерські компетенції, Розуміння бізнесу, Орієнтація на результат, Співпраця та Розвиток підлеглих сприяють залученню підлеглих. «Лідерство», «Ініціатива», «Ділове взаєморозуміння», «Взаємодія» також взаємопов'язані з власною залученістю лідера. «Планування» має протилежний ефект. Встановлено, що існують відмінності у залученості керівників і працівників.

Між залученістю працівника та керівника існує зв'язок із рівнем розвитку його компетенцій: деякі з компетенцій керівника пов'язані з його високою залученістю та залученістю його співробітників, деякі - з низькою. Виявлено зв'язок між рівнями залученості керівника та співробітників. Виявлено відмінності в деяких параметрах взаємодії керівників і співробітників.

Ключові слова: трудова залученість, мотивація праці, управлінські компетенції, задоволеність персоналу, організаційна психологія.

General problem statement

Analysis of the connection between the level of development of managerial competencies of a manager and the involvement in the work of both himself and his subordinates. Most managers of modern organizations pay considerable attention to managing employee engagement when working with personnel. One of the key factors influencing employee engagement is the immediate supervisor. It is important to determine the manager's competencies, through the development of which it is possible to increase the involvement of employees at different levels in the organization. The work examined the relationship between the involvement of employees at different levels in the organization and the level of development of the competencies of their managers; and differences between executive and employee engagement. The presence and degree of relationships were determined using correlation analysis, and differences were determined by assessing the reliability of differences in mean values.

Participants. Employees of the organization: 768 people (24,2% men, 75,8% women): 146 (19%) managers and 622 (81%) employees. Methodology for assessing the competencies of managers “360 degrees” based on a corporate model of 8 management competencies; Anonymous engagement questionnaire. The manager's competencies “Understanding the Business”, “Result Orientation”, “Interaction” and “Development of Subordinates” contribute to the involvement of subordinates. “Leadership”, “Initiative”, “Business Understanding”, “Interaction” is also interconnected with the leader's own involvement. “Planning” is an inverse relationship. It has been established that there are differences in the involvement of managers and employees.

Analysis of recent research and publications

Organizational psychologists are increasingly examining both physical, cognitive and emotional state of the employee. The definition of engagement has been expanded and brought closer to socio-psychological phenomenon by M. Barrick: “General ideas of organization members that members organizations as a whole are physically, cognitively and emotionally immersed in their work” [1, p. 113]. A little later B. Shook and coauthors proposed to consider engagement as a manifestation of work motivation: “A motivational concept that reflects the simultaneous investment of a person's physical, cognitive and emotional energy into active, full-time work" [2; 7, p. 269].

In this paper, the authors adhere to the definition formulated earlier: “Involvement is physical, emotional and intellectual state that contributes to the best performance of work".

Recently, both organizational psychologists and organizational leaders have increasingly begun to study the question of whether there is a universal recipe for increasing employee engagement? How to influence its level?

Are internal or external influences more effective? What is the role of a manager in creating employee engagement?

According to the results of many studies and according to different models of engagement, underlying a number of methods for assessing it, along with the company's culture, the company's business goals, process efficiency, product and market image, the “manager” is considered a factor influencing employee engagement [2; 6].

Extensive research into the qualities of top leaders by leadership consultants has shown that the ability to “inspire and motivate excellence” is the most effective indicator of an outstanding leader.

The ability to inspire is not a pleasant bonus or an add-on to the responsibilities of a leader, but a priority [3].

In a study by R. Sutton and his colleagues, summarizing the results of observations of the work of several hundred managers at different levels in different industries, as well as interviews with thousands of workers - their subordinates, an unexpected result was discovered. Most respondents were sure that bosses are never good, and any manager is an unpleasant person who should gain efficiency at any cost.

The results of surveys of different groups were identical: about 75% of people considered communication with their immediate superior to be the most unpleasant part of their work.

The main research material mentioning justification of the scientific results obtained. The concept of engagement described in the works of the following scientists such as A. Saks, Kahn, M. Barrick, B. Shook, R. Sutton, R. Hogan. According to the author of this term [3; 5], engagement is a state of an employee characterized by the degree realizing his personal potential in the process of fulfilling his work role, as well as the degree of its active, cognitive and emotional expression in process of labor activity.

The goal of the article-research of the peculiarities and problems

The purpose of the study, conducted in 2021 in a modern international organization, was to study the influence of manager competencies on the engagement of subordinate employees. Research hypothesis: there is a relationship between certain competencies of a manager and the involvement in the work of both himself and his team members.

Presentation of the main material

Research design

The study was carried out in 2 stages. On In the first stage, respondents participated in an anonymous engagement survey, noting the level of your position (top management, department head, employees without subordinates) and structural unit. At the second stage, a survey was conducted using the “360-degree” method, assessing the level of development of competencies of the head of each structural unit.

Study sample. Employees modern commercial organization: 768 people (24.2% men, 75.8% women), of which 146 (19%) are managers and 622 (81%) employees.

Research methods:

1. Anonymous engagement questionnaire [4; 8]. This methodology, in addition to the “Involvement” scale, evaluates the parameters that influence it: “Work-life balance”, “Interaction”, “Reward and recognition”, “Senior management”, “Career opportunities”, “Immediate supervisor”, “Training and development”, “Brand attractiveness”, “Independence”, “Work content”, “Respect and acceptance”, “Talent management and selection”, “Performance management”, “Conditions for success”.

2. “360-degree” methodology in accordance with the corporate competency model. Corporate competency model managers used in a company reflects the basic expectations of managers in terms of the skills and knowledge involved in day-today work, allowing them to separate effective leaders from less effective ones. It also includes corporate values and future changes in strategy and expectations from the company's managers and employees.

Corporate competency model managers include 8 competencies:

Understanding the business. Possession of systemic ideas about the organization's business. Understanding the specifics of the work company and product. Knowledge of the company's advantages, its position in the market, competitive advantages, strategic priorities. Mastery of internal business processes, understanding of your roles and roles of the subordinate unit in their implementation.

Critical thinking. Establishment relationships between data, past trends, general patterns. Analysis of facts and forecast of future trends. Ability to determine volume and sources of data needed for making management decisions. Checking the reliability of arguments, building your judgments on facts, especially for critical information.

Clarity in planning. Timely distribution of the sequence of actions, accurate assessment of the necessary material and time resources. The ability to determine goals for oneself and subordinates, set priorities, and evaluate actions, time and necessary resources to achieve them. High self-organization skills.

Result-oriented. Purposefulness, perseverance in achieving goals. Finding ways to overcome failures. Ability to remain highly motivated to achieve and exceed goals. Taking responsibility for achieving the goal set for yourself or your team.

Initiative. Offer and implementation of ideas to improve the company's performance. Application of new approaches to achieve better division and company results. Understanding the feasibility of your proposals. Willingness to take on responsibility for implementing initiatives.

Interaction. Ability to work effectively with others to achieving results. Impact on others to obtain consent or supporting proposals aimed at achieving better overall result. Ability to demonstrate the importance of everyone's contribution to the team achieving a common goal.

Development of subordinates. Understanding personal development areas and skills of colleagues, requiring growth, readiness and activity for their improvement. Ability identify and accept the strengths and weaknesses of subordinates, distinguish between them talents and growth needs, creation favorable conditions for development. Providing regular feedback.

Leadership. Ability to unite people to achieve company goals. Taking responsibility for the results of the team's work. Formal and informal authority among colleagues all levels - subordinates, managers, subcontractors - the ability to provide impact on their work behavior.

Processing of research results carried out using the IBM program SPSS Statistics 23. Methods used assessment of the reliability of differences in means values according to the Mann-Whitney U test and rank correlation coefficient Spearman data.

Despite the anonymity of the survey, during the survey participants noted the level of their positions in the organization and belonging to structural divisions. When processing anonymous responses, data on the designated participants by divisions in the context declared management levels. There are 146 managers participated in the study (23 senior management representatives and 123 middle managers), as well as 622 employees. Further analysis when comparing the results of two groups, data on senior and middle managers are combined into a group “manager”, because when assessing studied parameters statistically No significant differences were found between representatives of both groups.

The level of involvement in the work of managers significantly exceeds (p < 0.05) the same indicator among employees. 88% of managers and 80% of employees are involved in their work and are characterized by high loyalty to organization and high work motivation - the desire to work with dedication, willingness to “give all the best” at work more than standard, desire to achieve high results.

When comparing satisfaction different HR practices that influence engagement, it was found that the severity of 4 of 14 parameters differ significantly among managers and employees. For the remaining 10 parameters, no statistically significant differences were found.

Among the 6 factors influencing employee motivation, in this study, managers are assessed differently high and low engaged employees. If highly involved “Manager” is the most attractive factor, then in the group of those with low involvement in work, satisfaction with the manager decreases, giving way to the leader place for the “Collective” factor.

To test the main hypothesis - studying the relationship between severity the level of development of certain competencies of the manager and the involvement of both himself and his subordinates - The results of the annual assessment of managers using the corporate competency model were used. Grade was carried out using the “360-degree” method; the data analysis used average indicators for competencies, combined into a corporate competency model. To understand the areas of development of managers' competencies and the discrepancy between average values and target values for each competency, the data is compared with the target values - the success profile.

Among the parameters influencing engagement, employees' rate “Interaction in the organization” better, which can be explained by easier communication with colleagues at their level to solve common problems and fewer potential conflicts of interest. Managers perceive “Independence” and “Work Content” more positively, which is associated with greater freedom in choosing both the priority and methods of solving work tasks. High an assessment of work-life balance shows not so much shorter working hours compared to ordinary employees, but rather a greater willingness of managers to overwork and stress levels in managerial positions.

When comparing the severity of satisfaction with various motivation factors among employees of all organizational levels with high and low involvement, it was found that among employees with high involvement, “Manager” is the most “satisfied” factor, ranking first among others. In the group of low-involvement people, this factor already moves to the third position in satisfaction, giving way to first place to the “Team” factor. It is noteworthy that among all 6 assessed factors, it is satisfaction with the manager that decreases most clearly in the hierarchy with a decrease in involvement, which indirectly confirms our hypothesis about the existence of managers' influence on employee engagement. Managers with a high level of development of these competencies are more involved in work than others and manage the most involved employees. This can be explained by the fact that Such managers create a sense of confidence in the team that business decisions are being made correctly and are able to create effective cooperation between colleagues from both their own and related departments, ensuring the most effective interaction. In addition, managers with developed “Business Understanding” and “Interaction” competencies pay more attention to informing employees about the organization's plans, and this contributes to the high involvement of subordinates. The lack of timely, reliable information about the company's activities and events occurring in it causes confusion and leads to stress. When people understand what's going on in a company, they feel secure and can make quality decisions.

“Initiative” and “Leadership” are interrelated with the involvement of the leader himself, but not of subordinates. If This result with the “Initiative” competence can be explained by the fact that although this competence is more characteristic of the people involved, apparently not all the initiatives they propose, as well as the methods for achieving them, are shared environment of the initiators, then the data on the lack of relationship between the Leadership competency and the involvement of subordinates contradict established stereotypes. The pattern discovered in the sample of this study refutes the approach that has existed for many years, postulating a direct influence of the leadership qualities of the boss on the involvement of teams and recommending developing the leader's leadership as one of the main measures for developing employee involvement.

manager involvement employee work

The conclusion

Summing up the results of the study, it is worth noting that the formulated hypothesis about the existence of a relationship between certain competencies of a manager and the involvement in the work of both himself and his team members was confirmed. The following patterns were discovered and described:

1) There are differences between employees and managers in satisfaction with the company's HR practices: managers are more critical in assessing “Interaction”, they rate “Work Content” higher, “Independence”, “Work-life balance”.

2) Overall level of engagement higher among managers.

3) “Manager” is a motivation factor that is most positively perceived by involved employees; satisfaction with it decreases with decreasing involvement.

4) A relationship was discovered between the level of development of some managerial competencies and the involvement of himself and/or his employees:

• “Leadership”, “Initiative”, “Business Understanding”, “Interaction” is directly related to the manager's own involvement; “Planning” has an inverse relationship;

• “Business Understanding”, “Result Orientation”, “Interaction” and “Development of Subordinates” contribute to involvement of subordinates.

5) Based on the results of the correlation analysis, it was found that the manager's involvement is strongly interrelated with the involvement of subordinates.

All found in the study patterns need to be taken into account by both psychological scientists and corporate HR employees. Based on the data obtained, it is possible to build work with employee engagement in modern organizations with even higher efficiency. At the same time, this study opens up prospects for further study in this area - the question of what is decisive in the discovered relationships remains unexplored: the involvement or characteristics of the leader. Of great interest is the possible assessment of the relationship between the level of development of employees' competencies and their own involvement in work and analysis in comparison of the relationships with the competencies of managers. All these questions are planned to be investigated in the future.

References

1. Barrick M. et al. Collective organizational engagement: linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 2015. Vol. 58, № 1, pp. 111--135.

2. Gallup. State of the American Manager: Analytics and Advice for Leaders (report).

3. Hogan R. et al. Management derailment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.). APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3. Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2011, pp. 555--576.

4. Khan W. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 1990. Vol. 33, № 4.

5. Lewis R. et al. Management competencies for enhancing employee engagement [Elektronnyi resurs]. (Project Report) London, U.K.: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

6. Saks A. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2006. Vol. 21, № 7, pp. 600--619.

7. Shuck B. et al. Definitional and Conceptual Muddling: Identifying the Positionality of Employee Engagement and Defining the Construct. Human Resource Development Review, 2017. Vol. 16, № 3, pp. 263--293.

8. Society for human resource management. Employee job Satisfaction and engagement: The road to economic recovery

Література

1. Barrick M. et al. Collective organizational engagement: linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 2015. Vol. 58, № 1, pp. 111--135.

2. Gallup. State of the American Manager: Analytics and Advice for Leaders (report).

3. Hogan R. et al. Management derailment. In S. Zedeck (Ed.). APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3. Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2011, pp. 555--576.

4. Khan W. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 1990. Vol. 33, № 4.

5. Lewis R. et al. Management competencies for enhancing employee engagement [Elektronnyi resurs]. (Project Report) London, U.K.: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

6. Saks A. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 2006. Vol. 21, № 7, pp. 600--619.

7. Shuck B. et al. Definitional and Conceptual Muddling: Identifying the Positionality of Employee Engagement and Defining the Construct. Human Resource Development Review, 2017. Vol. 16, № 3, pp. 263--293.

8. Society for human resource management. Employee job Satisfaction and engagement: The road to economic recovery

Размещено на Allbest.ru