26.10.2014 Views

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

center. Field centers have great latitude in choosing their assignments and projects; it is<br />

through negotiation and discussion that the program manager and the field-center<br />

director agree on the terms of managing the program. Subsequently, the field-center<br />

director assigns a technical manager to carry out the program objectives; and the<br />

program manager allocates resources to the center.<br />

After this transaction has been completed, the program manager is left with little or<br />

no control over the spending of the money funded; however, he or she remains<br />

responsible for overseeing the program’s development. The program manager’s primary<br />

responsibility is managing the relationships among the technical managers, on the one<br />

hand, whose positions are hierarchically equivalent to his or her own, and the<br />

headquarters administrators, on the other, whose positions are higher but who view the<br />

program manager as the expert in managing the program concerned. In the absence of a<br />

traditional hierarchical reporting structure, the program manager’s ability to influence<br />

other organizational units rests largely in his or her ability to understand the limitations<br />

and constraints of the work situations involved as well as what other people expect from<br />

him or her.<br />

The authors’ study focused on the following questions:<br />

■ How does the program manager influence individuals in other parts of the over<br />

whom he or she has no formal power?<br />

■ What competencies distinguish the program managers who are viewed as more<br />

successful from those who are viewed as less successful?<br />

The authors asked people who are the objects of program managers’ influence<br />

attempts to rate the effectiveness of these managers. This inquiry focused on the<br />

network of individuals who are at the same and higher status at NASA. Three<br />

conceptual models were used to analyze the influence attempts made by program<br />

managers: personal power strategies, transformational versus transactional leadership,<br />

and empathy versus perspective taking.<br />

Personal Power Strategies<br />

At OD ‘80, the University Associates (now Pfeiffer & Company) conference on<br />

organization development that was held in New York, San Diego, and London in 1980,<br />

Harrison (1980) delivered a presentation and subsequently wrote a paper about his work<br />

on personal power. His presentation focused primarily on people in organizations who<br />

do not have the traditional forms of power that are associated with positions in the<br />

hierarchy. Such individuals include staff, product/program managers, and consultants<br />

who act as resources to operating managers. In the absence of positional power, these<br />

people have to rely on what Harrison calls personal power. Harrison states that in order<br />

to make optimum use of personal power, one must be responsive to the “psychological<br />

energy” of the individual, group, or organization with whom he or she interacts. When<br />

one person tries to change or affect another, something analogous to physical energy or<br />

force is involved; energy is required to overcome the inertia of the other person and to<br />

388 ❘❚<br />

The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright ©1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!