Management Practices and the Uninvolved Manager: The Effect of Supervisory Attitudes on Perceptions of Organizational Trust and Change Orientation

Abstract

This paper examines supervisor attitudes towards management practices (work group rela tionships, relationships with their own supervisors, performance appraisal systems, and organizational commitment) and their relationship to the supervisor's own sense of manage rial involvement (as measured through Organizational Trust and Change Orientation scales). Using regression analysis, a relationship between "organizational humanist" management practices (especially with respect to intergroup relationships and job challenge) and manage rial involvement is confirmed. ByWho motivates the motivator? Peter Drucker (1974; p. 400) has noted Dennis M. Daley mat motivation is among the prime tasks of management. Yet, we tend to assume that managers are ipso facto already motivated, that they are not themselves subject to the same maladies which call forth our efforts at motivating others. In order to motivate others managers must first them selves be involved. This paper examines the effect of management practices attitudes on a manager's own sense of involvement (as measured in terms of percep tions regarding Organizational Trust and Change Orientation).To what extent are organizational commitment, the relationships with their own supervisors, workgroup relationships, and performance appraisal systems perceived to influence a manager 7 s own involvement or loyalty? The Uninvolved ManagerThe uninvolved manager can pose a serious organizational problem. Whereas the uninvolved worker is "merely" less productive than they could be (for information on the uninvolved worker see Crawford, Thomas and Fink, uninvolved manager 7 s reduced productivity "trickles down the hierarchy," setting a bad example for their subordinates in their failure to manage.

Measurement of Perceived Organizational Readiness for Change in the Public Sector

“…Simon (1996) and Stewart (1994) used this term to denote the structural attributes of an organization, but Armenakis, Harris and Feild (1999) and Cunningham et al (2002) explicitly referred to employee mindsets. On the other hand, such authors as Daley (1991) and Lehman, Greener and Simpson (2002) referred to both institutional and personal aspects of readiness without clearly separating them. Only Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) drew a distinction between the constructs of organizational and employee readiness for change and suggested a causal relationship between them.…”

Perceived Organizational Change and its Connection to the Work-Related Empowerment

“…been associated with perceived fairness of decisions (16), organizational effectiveness (17), group cohesion (18) and job satisfaction (19). Trust, therefore, is essential to organizational relationships, particularly in major reforms where organizational structures are flattened (20).…”

“…They are dependent on others for access to organizational resources (e.g., access to information and opportunities), which makes them feel uncertain. (17) Managers could also strengthen employee trust by providing improved access to information, as research has found a strong relationship between trust and organizational communication (22).…”

Leadership Style in Relation to Organizational Change and Organizational Creativity: Perceptions from Nonprofit Organizational Members

“…Psychological climate for organizational change readiness was assessed by examining parishioners' perceptions of the extent to which organizational members were ready for organizational change. We used nine items from Daley (1991), Jones and Bearley (1986), and Tagliaferri (1991;cited in Eby et al 2000) and made slight adaptations for a congregational setting. Two example items were "It is really not possible to change things around here" (reverse coded), and "People here do not take action until a problem has occurred" (reverse coded).…”