In the not so distant past, the plant had a maintenance manager who came across as a bully. It was especially evident when he was stressed. One incident occurred following a plant shutdown for repairs. The activity was not going well but the workers were slogging through the issues as they arose. Soon enough the maintenance manager was down in our section watching over the task which was holding up production. He stuck around after finding out the latest status of the job and did not leave. The more he hovered the less the workers produced. The workers response to the manager’s behavior is somewhat predictable. The response was to resist the pressure being applied by the manager. If the manager had been able to anticipate the response to his leadership style a better outcome could have been achieved. He failed to recognize the differences between his leadership style and the responsive traits of those workers. It was frustrating for both parties.
If the maintenance manger had an understanding of the psychodynamic attributes in play, a more successful outcome for the plant could have been realized. Soon after this incident the man was released from his job to pursue other opportunities.
Executive coaches still apply psychodynamic methods in coaching sessions. Psychodynamic methods should be considered when there are “patterns of dysfunctional behavior in individuals, groups, or whole organizations” (Kilburg 2004). The manager in the above example was provided a coach; however, I don’t know if psychodynamic methods were applied to his situation. There was no intervention in the work group to try and determine the source of its dysfunction. It is unknown how such an intervention would have been received by the workers.
The current maintenance manager has a leadership preference of the introvert: quiet, reflective, thinking as opposed to the previous manager whom I consider more of the judger type: decisive, sticks to plans. The leadership preferences are quite different and signaled a shift in strategy for maintenance leadership at the plant.
References
Kilburg, R. R. (2004). When Shadows Fall: Using Psychodynamic Approaches in Executive Coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 56(4), 246-268. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.56.4.246Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2015). PSYCH 485 Module 3: Psychodynamic Approach. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1486679/modules/items/15958888
gsl117 says
The different outcome should have come from the understanding the manager would have gained from understanding of his relationship with the followers. According to Northouse (2013), “the leader exhibits certain appropriate behaviors that are intended to create the desired response in the subordinate” (p.338-339). So by knowing his “personality characteristics and quirks” (Northouse 2013 p. 321) and the impact on subordinate behavior he may have chosen a different tactic with the knowledge gained from psychodynamics. Instead of glowering, talk them through any problems they’ve encountered, get a commitment for when the job would be finished and hold them to it.
Yes it was a union shop with a long memory of past management offenses. Being loud, aggressive and overbearing when under stress, is how I defined bully. I do believe that the manager should have been clear with the supervisor as to expectations for his crew and then held him accountable.
Reference
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Kimberly Jo Mcdonough says
What basis are you using to determine that a psychodynamic approach would have provided a different outcome? While I understand the frustration that you mention, is it possible that the workers were unmotivated and had no sense of work ethic to perform the tasks assigned them? I question your use of the word “bully” as well. In your description, it appears that he was invested in making sure the tasks were completed in a satisfactory manner, and that would be one of his responsibilities as a manager. He may have appeared to be hovering, but that is not necessarily a bad thing if there was a component to the status that he was required to feedback to other leaders.
In this type of scenario, depending on whether or not this organization was a union or if there were other organizational factors to consider could make a psychodynamic approach ineffective (Northouse, 2013). Noting that the current manager was an introvert and a change in approach may have been more suitable for the followers, but could conflict with the needs of the organization of the work is still not completed effectively. So while the employees may be satisfied, it is difficult to determine the long-term effects of the change, and whether or not the psychodynamic approach is truly what made the difference.