Management. Fish. What?
Let’s start our aquatic management
journey with a fishbowl. Many of us can remember having a goldfish – maybe you won
yours at a carnival, or maybe you were bought one to be your first “pet” so you
could prove your responsibility before mom and dad put the life of a dog or cat
in your hands. I had a goldfish, his name was “Barry”; I have no idea why I
named him that. About a week later, I had another goldfish, “Barry 2”, a short
while thereafter came “Barry 3”. They never met each other.
Barry and his successors lived their (short) lives in the
same tiny fish bowl, the size of which you might think of when thinking of that
first goldfish. Barry swam back and forth, and as you might imagine, it didn’t
take him too long to get from one side to the other. I fed Barry and he swam.
And I fed him more, and he swam more. And I might have fed him too much, and he
floated. But enough about Barry’s swimming and overeating habits – think of his
fishbowl. It was small and constrained any freedom he may have had or wanted.
At the same time, had he been dropped in an ocean, he’d have been overwhelmed,
and likely (literally) eaten alive. Ideally, Barry would have lied in an
aquarium in my room. He’d have had room, and maybe even lasted long enough to
meet some friends.
The same applies to your employees. As a manager, you need
to find them an aquarium. Too many rules and bureaucratic structures in place
will stifle your employees. Micromanagement serves that master as well and puts
your employees in that fishbowl. But micromanagement isn’t always a conscious
activity; micromanagement often finds its roots in a desire for high quality output
– but you know what they say about the road to hell. For 40 years we’ve seen that
employees, especially in a Western context, crave autonomy, the ability to
participate1 and
the opportunity to be in charge of their work. Give them a task, or even an end-goal, and let
them create the path.
But, if autonomy is a good thing,
is there too much of a good thing? You may have heard of the “Inverted U” – a phenomenon
often demonstrated2 whereby the relationship between an action and its effect isn’t linear, but
rather is positive to some peak level, but negative beyond that, thus the
graphic representation looks like an upside down letter “U”. This relationship
has also been seen when it comes to autonomy3. Employees have shown a desire for autonomy – they don’t want to be limited to
the boundaries of a tiny fishbowl, so should you throw them in the analogical
ocean and let them find their way? Research I’ve conducted4 has noted that employees (especially entry-level professional employees) desire
defined tasks and roles in the workplace.
Reconciling a desire for autonomy,
participation and control for their work with the “too much of a good thing”
effect means we need to find an alternative that meets a balance between the
fishbowl and the ocean. That alternative is the aquarium. Give your employees
room to swim, but enough guidelines and framework for their work that they don’t
get lost in the ocean. Given them autonomy and
direction.
Manage, don’t micromanage, and get
your employees in an aquarium.
This has been my second blog entry in what is planned to be a weekly business blogging habit. Please feel free to share, comment and/or suggest topics.
[1] See,
for example:
·
Hespe, G. (1976) The demand for participation
among employees. Human Relations, 29(5),
411-428
·
Spector, P. E. (1986) Perceived control by
employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at
work. Human Relations, 39(11),
1005-1016
·
Jønsson, T., & Jeppesen, H. J. (2013) Under the
influence of the team? An investigation of the relationships between team
autonomy, individual autonomy and social influence within teams. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24(1), 78-93
[2]
See, for example:
·
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011) Too much
of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1),
61-76
·
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013) The
too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313-338.
[3]
See, for example:
·
Langfred, C. W. (2004) Too much of a good thing?
Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3),
385-399.
[4]
See, for example:
·
Edelson, S. A., Haynie, J. M., & McKelvie, A.
(2012). Working for a Start-up?
Investigating the role of 'Venture Personality' in the Recruitment of Human
Capital. in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 2011. A.Zacharakis,
S. Alvarez, M. S. Cardon, J. O. De Castro, F. Delmar (eds.). Babson Park,
MA: The Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship.