Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior - Soltanieh ...

COMMUNICATE SUCCESSFULLY BY SEEKING BALANCE
433
The differentiation of task and relational leadership in an organization is sometimes
captured in the formal organizational roles. Managers are, generally speaking, supposed
to focus on organizational success, as, for example, determined by sales, productivity, and
corporate image. Some organizations overlay this management structure with counselors,
ombudspersons, and human relations staff, whose function is to solve problems associated
with inappropriate communication, animosities, and cliques in the workplace. Modern
organizations have HR departments to deal with relational issues, although the “ bottom
line ” may still be the implicit underlying consideration.
In organizational groups or teams, there is likely to be a differentiation between both
the relative amounts that group members communicate and the orientation of their communications
between tasks and relationships. As for the first, there is evidence that sheer
talking helps create a leadership hierarchy (Mullen, Salas, and Driskell, 1989 ; Stein and
Heller, 1983 ; but cf. Pavitt, Whitchurch, Siple, and Petersen, 1997 ). Talking more helps
make one a group leader (for better or for worse). On the other hand, there is some evidence
that leaders specialize in task activities or in relational activities (Slater, 1955 ; cf.
Lewis, 1972 ). Burke ( 1968 ) stated that “ inequality of participation [by group members]
in task activities leads to the emergence of separate specialized task and social - emotional
roles [when task activity is low in legitimacy] ” (p. 404). Thus, the amount of communication
along with the balance of specialization in task activities versus relational activities
helps to create the group ’s hierarchical structure.
This hierarchical structure has important implications for the way that antagonisms
and disagreements are created and transform the group. A relationship has been found
between the amount that the group ’s task leader exceeds others in task performance and
the amount that the low - status group member is scapegoated, at least in groups whose
activities are low in legitimation (i.e. the acceptability of the tasks to the group members;
see Burke, 1969 ). Further, if the task leader does not support the low - status member, scapegoating
the low - status member increases (Gallagher and Burke, 1974 ). In other words,
group members are likely to be antagonistic and disagree with the low - status group member,
rather than show solidarity toward or agree with this person, when the task leader is
performing admirably and doesn’t support the low - status group member.
Consistent with these ideas, a simulation found that the most effective five - member
group had members with different roles, including a social organizer and a democratic
task leader (Hare and Hare, 2001 ). Furthermore, in student groups, “ the nature and frequency
of the leader ’s communication, ” among other things, affected the quality of what
the group produced (Harper and Askling, 1980 , p. 6). In this study, the leaders of successful
groups communicated more about task than about socio - emotional matters and were
perceived as communicating more than others. Finally, scapegoating undermines group
effectiveness, because it lessens the involvement and productivity of the person scapegoated,
takes the time and energy of group members to “ excommunicate ” a group member
rather than integrate the member in the group, and in most bureaucratic organizations it
takes additional time and energy if the scapegoated member is to be dismissed: Typically,
the leader must repeatedly (1) document the failures of this individual, (2) document the
attempts to improve this individual ’s performance, (3) sanction this individual, and (4)
document the acknowledgments by the scapegoated individual of these documents and
meetings related to them. Although these activities may be necessary if a member is not