The book is intended to address dysfunctional behaviors in management, but as I went through I recognized that some of these behaviors are so widespread as to be part of the very fabric of certain companies, and of entire industries. The customary tone of the superior-subordinate relationship is an indication of organizational culture - a manager is acting in accordance with the culture of the firm, or if he is not, his behavior is at the very least being tacitly condoned and accepted, though not overtly advocated (as yet).
My sense is the examination of the superior-subordinate relationship yields insight beyond the formal authority structure of an organization, as the same qualities evidence themselves in any relationship in which there is power disparity ... which is to say, in all relationships, as even those that are nominally egalitarian will find that each party has some advantage over the other in certain instances.
And from a perspective of negotiation, one of the most critical assessments in the early stages is to analyze the locus of power: to determine who thinks they have power, who actually does hold power, and to adjust your tactics accordingly. The traits that people involved in a negotiation demonstrate reflect the degree to which that individual feels himself to be in a position of power.
The qualification "feels himself to be" is significant. A person who lets on that they are in a position of power can be mistaken. Such a person might also be well aware that they lack power and are overcompensating with their behavior to deceive the other person into thinking they are in a stronger position than they are. And in either case, it can be a severe liability - just as a wrestler can use his opponent's force and weight to effect a devastating takedown, so can a skilled negotiator leverage to his own advantage the force of someone who is throwing their weight around carelessly in a metaphorical sense.
At this point, I am chasing a red herring ... I've turned away from relationship management and have begun down the course of negotiation tactics, and have to stagger a bit awkwardly back ...
The tone that a person takes in interacting with others reflects their sense of power in regard to the other party. This is applicable to manager-subordinate relationships as the author describes - but can be extended to service relationships, in which the provider and the customer each feel themselves to have a source of power, and the negotiation is influenced by this belief. That is, a boss who feels himself to be in a position of complete power over his subordinates in prone to behave abominably, and so does a firm that feels itself to be in a position of complete power over the market.
It's curious that such misbeliefs are perpetuated to the present day: if it were not so, there would be no market for a book of this nature - nor any need for the volumes of information written to guide firms and individuals in interacting with customers. It should go without saying that bigotry, despotism, manipulation, autocracy, and the like are detrimental to morale and performance alike - but if it really were self-evident, would these behaviors really be so widespread?
My sense is the examination of the superior-subordinate relationship yields insight beyond the formal authority structure of an organization, as the same qualities evidence themselves in any relationship in which there is power disparity ... which is to say, in all relationships, as even those that are nominally egalitarian will find that each party has some advantage over the other in certain instances.
And from a perspective of negotiation, one of the most critical assessments in the early stages is to analyze the locus of power: to determine who thinks they have power, who actually does hold power, and to adjust your tactics accordingly. The traits that people involved in a negotiation demonstrate reflect the degree to which that individual feels himself to be in a position of power.
The qualification "feels himself to be" is significant. A person who lets on that they are in a position of power can be mistaken. Such a person might also be well aware that they lack power and are overcompensating with their behavior to deceive the other person into thinking they are in a stronger position than they are. And in either case, it can be a severe liability - just as a wrestler can use his opponent's force and weight to effect a devastating takedown, so can a skilled negotiator leverage to his own advantage the force of someone who is throwing their weight around carelessly in a metaphorical sense.
At this point, I am chasing a red herring ... I've turned away from relationship management and have begun down the course of negotiation tactics, and have to stagger a bit awkwardly back ...
The tone that a person takes in interacting with others reflects their sense of power in regard to the other party. This is applicable to manager-subordinate relationships as the author describes - but can be extended to service relationships, in which the provider and the customer each feel themselves to have a source of power, and the negotiation is influenced by this belief. That is, a boss who feels himself to be in a position of complete power over his subordinates in prone to behave abominably, and so does a firm that feels itself to be in a position of complete power over the market.
It's curious that such misbeliefs are perpetuated to the present day: if it were not so, there would be no market for a book of this nature - nor any need for the volumes of information written to guide firms and individuals in interacting with customers. It should go without saying that bigotry, despotism, manipulation, autocracy, and the like are detrimental to morale and performance alike - but if it really were self-evident, would these behaviors really be so widespread?
No comments:
Post a Comment