BUS603: Managing People

In any interpersonal relationship people interact through communication. Interpersonal communications are characterized by four interacting patterns. A person can either be sharing, private, versatile or neutral. Sharing individuals invite others to join in in sharing their mutual processes of investigating and exploring, building resolve and stating beliefs, evaluating needs and priorities, taking decisions and organizing and directing others, and anticipating the consequences of their actions and events. Private individuals switch the sharing process off whilst versatile individuals alternate between being private and sharing. Neutral individuals require to be catalyzed by others.

When considering the comment examples from Bill and Sue as provided by Baird and Kram  relating to superior- subordinate relationships it would appear that Bill's superior may be versatile with a tendency towards privateness and Sue's superior may be private or neutral in their interaction with others. The examples of their remarks about their superiors are provided below:

The pioneering work done by Lamb and Watson, More, and Ramsden significantly contributes towards understanding some of the problems related to interpersonal interaction in developmental relationships. Lamb's interest in human behaviour with specific reference to what motivates people to act in various but distinct ways, was sparked off by his studies under Laban during 1946- 1953. Lamb developed two frameworks of management initiative which reflect the managers'

(i) motivation to act in a unique and preferred manner when initiating the problem-solving and decision-making process in action; and

(ii) the motivation to interact in relation to others whilst being engaged in the problem-solving and decision-making process. These frameworks are reproduced in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 Framework of management initiative: the motivation to act:

The decision-making process in action

The decision making process in relation to others

Lamb's model for studying action and interaction with others is known as managerial action profiling. The action profiles of individuals reflect their 'action drives', - that is, their inbuilt energy or motivation to act in various ways. It does not reflect competence or ability. Action profiles reveal how individuals are likely to behave on the job and interact with others. Research studies on large samples of managers showed that they tended to spend more effort and time performing activities in those areas in which they had high potential energies. Average scores of 10% or less in a profile appears to create a 'blind spot' in those persons, which despite their individual competence, they may find difficult to overcome.

To illustrate the value action profiling may provide in researching and understanding mentor-protege relationships, an example is provided below. Example:

Considering the motivation to act:

When examining the superior's and subordinate's action profiles it is important to bear in mind:

(a) that persons have a unique and individual pathway their thinking takes when they go through a problem-solving and decision-making process;

(b) that they tend to begin the problem-solving decision process in the areas where they have the highest action drive, on the whole, spending more time in these areas. They then progress on through the other areas in order of their relative magnitude in their action profile;

(c) that inherent in every persons' action profile are certain strengths and weaknesses and that all action drives, whether they be high or low, they represent both potential weaknesses and strengths.

When the superior and subordinates act within their environment, the flow of their inbuilt energy is likely to follow the undermentioned sequence:

The superior can be described as an intending attender, - he is a determined investigator, evaluator and explorer, but a cautious committer. When interacting with such a boss, subordinates like persons A and B, may become frustrated as they have a greater drive to want to go into action and not delay.

Subordinate A is determined to investigate and explore trends he perceives and then wants to act. He can be labelled as a strategist (committing intender) whilst subordinate B is a committing attender, - good researcher and impulsive operator. Subordinate A could benefit by mentoring with his superior when it comes to exploring and evaluating and considering the operational practicalities of the job. He is furthermore low in adaptability and does not change easily and is likely to be criticized by his superior as being too theoretical, not following through on his actions, and failing to weigh up his priorities correctly. On the other hand, the superior can benefit by sharing in his subordinate's ability to anticipate and not resisting the signals for action.

Subordinate B could benefit by mentoring if he could be given help in evaluating and determining his priorities. Whether the superior is able to establish an effective mentor-protege relationship is dependent on each individual's motivation to interact.

To illustrate this point, the same three people's profiles are reproduced together with their interaction profiles.

The above illustration provides ample evidence that the superior could be a good mentor. This happens also to be the case with this person who is a group managing director of a medium sized organization. He could become more effective if he had insight into his own profile and those of his subordinates. Work carried out in this organization has in fact provided him with this information. Being versatile and sharing in his interaction with others gives this superior the distinct ability to catalyze and draw out subordinates who tend to be neutral or private.

As regards subordinate A, if he were to mentor with his own subordinates, he could be effective in his interaction whenever he investigates and explores and commits himself to action. However, if subordinates or peers wished to know this managers' intentions, they would have to catalyze him to obtain this information. Equally his superior would have to catalyze him in the intentional phase of the decision process. As regards subordinate B, he is likely to be classed as a poor mentor. His subordinates are likely to feel like Sue as reported by Baird and Kram. Subordinate B is a managing director of a subsidiary. It can be argued that where superiors or proteges are either neutral or private in their interaction, no effective developmental relationship is likely to emerge. The accumulated research on managerial action profiling tends to provide possible answers and insights on effective interpersonal developmental relationships and their breakdowns.