Organizational Structure & Culture Assignment

  5 SCHOLARY SOURCE, APA FORMAT Paper should be 4-5 double-spaced pages of content in length (this does not include title page or reference pages).


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Organizational Structure & Culture Assignment
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

In this Case Study, you will apply the Statesmanship model discussed in Module 1: Week 1 to a real, specific public administration context. In other words, choose an organization that is dealing with organizational change, design, and structure. Describe what happened in as much detail as necessary. Next, apply the statesmanship model discussed Module 1: Week 1 to this situation. The overarching idea of statesmanship is the call for moral character. In the context of this assignment, how can this model be applied to the situation at hand? 

You will apply the Statesmanship model needed to deal with the organizational change discussed. Remember to also discuss the importance of the following: 

· Noncentralization

· Covenant 

· Systems theory and environmental awareness

· Responsiveness to political forces and constituent management

· Effective crisis management and statecraft


· Case Study scenarios must be taken from documented (published) public administration contexts; no hypotheticals are allowed.  

o Students can focus on one public administration organization or may refer to a particular situation (well-documented by the research) that public administrators faced during an actual event(s).

· All ideas shared by student should be supported with sound reason and citations from the required readings and presentations, and additional resources. 

· Paper should be 4-5 double-spaced pages of content in length (this does not include title page or reference pages).

o Paper should be in current APA format.

o Headings should be included and must conform to the content categories listed (i.e., Noncentralization, Covenant, Systems theory, and environmental awareness, etc.).

· 5 additional scholarly sources must be used. They need to be scholarly and provide relevant public administration theory and practices. 

· All required reading and presentations from the assigned reading must be cited.

· Integrate biblical principles within the analysis of the paper.

· Unacceptable sources (Wikipedia, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and websites).

· Acceptable sources (scholarly articles published within the last eight years).

Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.

The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public organization: Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizational structure

Author links open overlay panel
Jorisvan der Voet

Get rights and content


This study examines the effectiveness and specificity of change management in public organizations.

Employee willingness to change is related to both planned and emergent change approaches.

Transformational leadership behavior contributes little to the effectiveness of planned change.

Transformational leadership behavior is crucial for employee support in emergent change.

Bureaucratic organizational structures limit the effects of transformational leadership.


There is an extensive private sector literature on organizational change management. However, recent studies have suggested that the specific context of public organizations may have consequences for the management organizational change. This study examines to what extent different change approaches and transformational leadership of direct supervisors contribute to the
effective implementation of organizational change in public organizations, and to what extent the bureaucratic structure of public organizations makes the implementation of organizational change
s3pecific. The implementation of an organizational change in a Dutch public organization is studied using quantitative methods and techniques. The results indicate that bureaucratic organizations may effectively implement organizational change with both planned and emergent change approaches. The contribution of transformational leadership depends on the type of change approach and organizational structure. Transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors contributes little to planned processes of change, but is crucial in emergent processes of change in a non-bureaucratic context. Although the literature on change management mostly emphasizes the leadership of senior managers, the leadership role of direct supervisors should not be overlooked during organizational change in public organizations.

The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public organization: Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizational structure

Author links open overlay panelJorisvan der Voet

Get rights and content


This study examines the effectiveness and specificity of change management in public organizations.

Employee willingness to change is related to both planned and emergent change approaches.

Transformational leadership behavior contributes little to the effectiveness of planned change.

Transformational leadership behavior is crucial for employee support in emergent change.

Bureaucratic organizational structures limit the effects of transformational leadership.


There is an extensive private sector literature on organizational change management. However, recent studies have suggested that the specific context of public organizations may have consequences for the management organizational change. This study examines to what extent different change approaches and transformational leadership of direct supervisors contribute to the
effective implementation of organizational change in public organizations, and to what extent the bureaucratic structure of public organizations makes the implementation of organizational change
s3pecific. The implementation of an organizational change in a Dutch public organization is studied using quantitative methods and techniques. The results indicate that bureaucratic organizations may effectively implement organizational change with both planned and emergent change approaches. The contribution of transformational leadership depends on the type of change approach and organizational structure. Transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors contributes little to planned processes of change, but is crucial in emergent processes of change in a non-bureaucratic context. Although the literature on change management mostly emphasizes the leadership of senior managers, the leadership role of direct supervisors should not be overlooked during organizational change in public organizations.



article in issue


article in issue


Change management
Organizational structure
Public sector organizations


There is an extensive private sector literature on organizational change management (
Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999,
Beer and Nohria, 2000,
Burke, 2010,
Self et al., 2007). However, recent studies have questioned to what extent private sector change management techniques are applicable in a public sector context, and have suggested that the differences between the public and private sector could play a role (
Boyne, 2006,
Karp and Helgø, 2008,
Kickert, 2013,
Klarner et al., 2008,
Rusaw, 2007). Several authors have suggested that the specific context of public organizations may have consequences for the management organizational change (
Burnes et al., 2009,
Coram and Burnes, 2001,
Isett et al., 2012,
McNulty and Ferlie, 2004), but there is little empirical evidence concerning this issue. A recent literature review of research on change management in the public sector by
Kuipers et al. (2013) found that most studies emphasize the content and context of change, instead of the implementation process. Moreover, Kuipers et al. conclude that many studies did not address the outcomes or success of a change intervention. Although there is substantial evidence that the implementation of organization change often fails (

Beer and Nohria, 2000

Burke, 2010
Burnes, 2011,
Kotter, 1996), there is relatively little evidence about how organizational change can be effectively managed in the public sector (
Fernandez and Pitts, 2007,
Kickert, 2010).

This study aims to contribute to research on change management in public organizations by addressing the effectiveness and specificity of change management in public organizations. First, this study aims to identify what factors contribute to the
effective implementation of organizational change in the public sector. As the implementation of organizational change ultimately depends on the support of employees (
Bartunek et al., 2006,
Herold et al., 2007). The concept of employee willingness to change is used to assess the degree to which employees support the implementation of change (
Metselaar, 1997). Following the emphasis on the role of leadership in the change management literature (e.g.
Gill, 2002,
Higgs and Rowland, 2005,
Higgs and Rowland, 2010,

Karp and Helgø, 2008

Kotter, 1996
), this study examines to what extent leadership contributes to employee willingness to change in the public sector. Attention is focused on the transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors. In addition, this study accounts for the effects of different change management approaches that are outlined in the literature on change management (

Beer and Nohria, 2000
By, 2005). We refer to these approaches as planned and emergent change (cf.
Bamford and Forrester, 2003,
Burnes, 1996,
Burnes, 2004,

Kickert, 2010

Secondly, this study aims to examine to what extent the specific nature of public organizations makes the implementation of organizational change
specific. A detailed literature exists about the specific characteristics of the objectives, environment, organizational structure of public sector organizations and the characteristics of their employees (e.g.
Allison, 1979,
Boyne, 2002,
Farnham and Horton, 1996,
Rainey, 2003,
Rainey and Bozeman, 2000). In this study, attention is focused on the organizational structure. Public organizations typically operate under a strict legal framework and are confronted with high demands for accountability (

Rainey, 2003
). Because of this, public organizations tend to avoid risks by formalizing the operations and centralizing decision-making in the organization (
Mintzberg, 1979). The organizational structure of public organizations is therefore generally said to be relatively bureaucratic (

Boyne, 2002

Farnham and Horton, 1996
). The organizational structure has traditionally been highlighted as a determinant of how organizations change (
Burns and Stalker, 1961,

Mintzberg, 1979
). Moreover,

Coram and Burnes (2001)

Isett et al. (2012)
have argued that the bureaucratic organizational structure of public organizations may have a bearing on the management of change, but there is limited empirical evidence regarding this issue.

To summarize, the first objective of this study is to assess to what extent transformational leadership and different change management approaches contribute to willingness to change in a public organization. The second research objective is to examine to how these relationships are affected by bureaucratic organizational structure. The central research question is:
How is the effectiveness of transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors in planned and emergent change affected by a bureaucratic organizational structure?

In order to address the research objectives, the implementation of an organizational change in a Dutch public organization is analyzed using quantitative methods. In the next section, the literature concerning organizational change in the public sector is reviewed. Moreover, the relationships between leadership, processes of change and the organizational structure are discussed in order to formulate hypotheses. Methods, sample and measures provides an overview of the methods, sample and measures of this study. Results are presented in Analysis and Results, followed by a discussion of the results in Discussion, limitations, and implications for future research. In this section, limitations of the study and recommendations for future research are also discussed. The main conclusions are given in Conclusion.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Organizational change in public organizations

Public organizations are often confronted with the need to implement organizational changes. However, the processes through which organizational change in public organizations come about have received relatively little attention in academic research (
Kickert, 2010,

Kuipers et al., 2013
). A prominent line of research that focuses on organizational change in public organizations is the public management reform perspective (e.g.
Boyne et al., 2003,
Kickert, 2007,
Ongaro, 2010,
Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004). This perspective focuses on “the deliberate changes to the structures and processes of public sector organizations with the objective of getting them (in some sense) to run better” (

Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004, p. 8
). However, the public management reform perspective is focused on the content and effects of organizational changes on the sector or national level (e.g.
Ackroyd et al., 2007,
Heinrich, 2002,
Pollitt, 2000), rather than on the implementation processes in individual organizations. As a consequence, the reform perspective has contributed little to insights about how the implementation of organizational change in the public sector is managed.

Theory on the management of organizational change management has traditionally been based on private sector research, cases and examples (
Stewart and Kringas, 2003,
Thomas, 1996). Change management research has addressed the role of contextual factors during organizational change (
Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999,
Pettigrew et al., 1992,
Pettigrew et al., 2001), but not the specific contextual characteristics of public organizations (
Kuipers et al., 2013). In the past decade, the issue of change management in public organizations has received increased attention (

Fernandez and Pitts, 2007
Fernandez and Rainey, 2006). Recent studies have focused on organizational changes in different types of public sector organizations, such as health care organizations (
Chustz and Larson, 2006,

Isett et al., 2012

Klarner et al., 2008

McNulty and Ferlie, 2004
), local government organizations (
Liguori, 2012,
Seijts and Roberts, 2011,
Zorn et al., 2000) and central government organizations (

Coram and Burnes, 2001
Ryan et al., 2008,
Sminia and Van Nistelrooij, 2006,

Stewart and Kringas, 2003
Stewart and O’Donnell, 2007).

Despite the increased attention for organizational change in public organizations, the literature has two considerable shortcomings. Based on a review of the literature on organizational change in public organizations between 2000 and 2010,

Kuipers et al. (2013)
state that most of the studies were based on case-based design using qualitative methods. Such studies often emphasize the importance of leadership during change in public organizations (

Karp and Helgø, 2008

Klarner et al., 2008

Ryan et al., 2008
). Other than research conducted in the private sector (e.g.
Herold et al., 2008,

Higgs and Rowland, 2005

Higgs and Rowland, 2010
Liu, 2010), little research has studied the effects of leadership during change in public organizations (

Fernandez & Pitts, 2007
). A first shortcoming is thus that existing research has little attention for the
effectiveness of leadership and different approaches to change. An exception is
Hennessey (1998), who studied the influence of leadership competencies during the implementation of ‘reinventing government’ changes in the United States.

A second shortcoming concerns the lack of empirical evidence about the
specificity of organizational change in the public sector. A central point of view in public management research is that private sector insights may not be applicable in public organizations (

Boyne, 2006
). There is a large literature on the specific characteristics of public organizations (e.g.

Boyne, 2002

Rainey, 2003
). In addition, many studies have suggested that the specific public sector context may influence organizational change (

Isett et al., 2012

Klarner et al., 2008

McNulty and Ferlie, 2004
). However, little research has empirically addressed the question what is specific or distinct about change in public organizations (exceptions are

Kickert, 2013
Robertson and Seneviratne, 1995). While many recent studies have studied change in public organizations, the distinctive characteristics of public organizations are generally not accounted for in the design or variables of these studies (e.g.

Chustz and Larson, 2006

Isett et al., 2012

Klarner et al., 2008

Sminia and Van Nistelrooij, 2006
Tummers et al., 2012) As such, there is little empirical evidence about what makes change management specific in public organizations.

In order to formulate hypotheses about the effectiveness of organizational change in public organizations, change management and leadership theory is reviewed subsequently. Then, the relations between change and a bureaucratic organizational structure are discussed in order to formulate hypotheses concerning the specificity of organizational change in public organizations.

Processes of organizational change and its leadership

The support of employees is crucial for the successful implementation for organizational change (
Bartunek et al., 2006,

Herold et al., 2007
). One of the central assumptions of the change management literature is that employee support for the implementation of organizational change is not only dependent on what changes – the content of change – but also on the process of change through which organizational change comes about (
Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999,

Self et al., 2007
). Organizational change is thus something that can be managed. In this study, the concept willingness to change is used to account for the support of employees concerning organizational change.

Metselaar (1997:42)
defines willingness to change as “a positive behavioral intention towards the implementation of modifications in an organization’s structure, or work and administrative processes, resulting in efforts from the organization member’s side to support or enhance the change process.”

The change management literature consists of many different approaches, strategies, interventions and actions through which change can be implemented (e.g.

Burke, 2010
). The literature is dominated by the distinction between planned and emergent processes of change (

Bamford and Forrester, 2003

By, 2005
). Planned change occurs through a process of rational goal-setting in which change objectives are formulated in advance and implemented in a top-down fashion. The central assumption is that the organization must go through a number of phases in order to successfully change to a desired future state (

Burnes, 1996

Burnes, 2004
). The emergent approach to change is a more devolved and bottom-up way to implement change (

By, 2005
). The content of change is not the starting point as in the planned approach to change, but rather the outcome of an emergent change process. Employees are not seen as passive recipients of the organizational change, but are stimulated to actively contribute to the change process (
Russ, 2008).

Leadership is generally highlighted as one of the key drivers of the implementation of organizational change (

Herold et al., 2008

Higgs and Rowland, 2005

Higgs and Rowland, 2010
Higgs and Rowland, 2011,

Liu, 2010
). A great deal of the change management literature is therefore concerned with change leadership. Change management refers to the process of change: the planning, coordinating, organizing and directing of the processes through which change is implemented, while leadership is aimed at the motivation and influence of employees (

Gill, 2002
Spicker, 2012). Change management can thus be seen as a sine qua non, while the successful organizational change ultimately requires leadership to be enacted (
Eisenbach, Watson, & Pillai, 1999). Research on change leadership is mostly directed at the role of senior executives or the role of a guiding coalition at the top of the organization (e.g.

Fernandez and Rainey, 2006

Hennessey, 1998

Kotter, 1996
). However,

Burke (2010)
argues that senior managers often initiate organizational change, while the implementation of change relies on lower level leadership. This study is therefore aimed at examining the contribution of leadership enacted by direct supervisors.

The main leadership theory that emphasizes organizational change is the theory of transformational leadership (
Bass, 1985,
Bass, 1999). This theory states that “by articulating a vision, fostering the acceptance of group goals, and providing individualized support, effective leaders change the basic values, beliefs, and attitudes of followers so that they are willing to perform beyond the minimum levels specified by the organization” (
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996, p. 260). Transformational leadership can be expected to be especially effective in times of organizational change (
Conger, 1999,

Herold et al., 2008

Liu, 2010
Pawar and Eastman, 1997,
Shamir and Howell, 1999).
Den Hartog, Van Muijen, and Koopman (1997, p. 20) argue how transformational leadership can ultimately transform the organization “by defining the need for change, creating new visions, [and] mobilizing commitment to these visions.”

Although studies often highlight the importance of leadership during change (e.g.

Gill, 2002

Kotter, 1996
), there is little empirical evidence concerning the influence of transformational leadership on employee support for change (

Burke, 2010

Herold et al., 2008
), especially in the public sector (

Fernandez & Pitts, 2007
). Rather than seeing change as a contextual factor which may influence the effectiveness of transformational leadership (

Pawar and Eastman, 1997

Shamir and Howell, 1999

Eisenbach et al. (1999, p. 84)
have argued how transformational leaders can be expected to execute the phases of change that are highlighted in the literature on planned organizational change (e.g.

Fernandez and Rainey, 2006

Kotter, 1996
). For example, transformational leaders may initiate change by developing an appealing future vision for the organization, which is generally seen as a crucial first step in the implementation of planned change (
Kanter et al., 1992,

Kotter, 1996
). Moreover, transformational leaders can be expected to contribute to the implementation of change by providing intellectual stimulation through the formulation of challenging objectives and the stimulation of new ways of thinking (
Eisenbach et al., 1999). Similarly,

Higgs and Rowland (2011: 329)
have noted parallels between the idealized influence and inspirational motivation provided by transformational leaders, and the behaviors of leaders in the implementation of planned change, such as envisioning a future state, role modeling and giving individual attention to employees (

Gill, 2002

Higgs and Rowland, 2010

In planned processes of change, transformational leaders can thus be expected to be uniquely effective change leaders (
Eisenbach et al., 1999,

Higgs and Rowland, 2011
). However, organizational change can also come about through emergent processes of change (

Burnes, 2004

By, 2005
), and different change processes may call for a different role of leadership (
Weick & Quinn, 1999). Rather than initiating and directing the implementation of change, leadership in emergent processes of change may consist of delegating responsibilities and creating capacity among employees to implement the change (

Higgs and Rowland, 2005

Higgs and Rowland, 2010
Van der Voet et al., 2013). The following hypothesis is proposed:


A higher degree of transformational leadership will increase the effectiveness of a planned process of change, but it will not increase the effectiveness of an emergent process of change.

Bureaucratic organizational structures and processes of change

In recent years, several studies have investigated the influence of contextual factors on the outcomes of organizational change (e.g.
Devos et al., 2007,
Rafferty and Restubog, 2009,

Self et al., 2007
). Several authors point out the relevance of organizational structure as a relevant contextual factor during organizational change. For example,

Weick and Quinn (1999)
argue that classic machine bureaucracies will require being unfrozen before organizational changes can take place. Similarly,

Coram and Burnes (2001)
argue that a planned approach to change is most suitable for rule-based, rigid structures.

Burnes (1996)
states that a top-down bureaucratic management style is associated with planned change, while a more decentralized, flexible management style corresponds with emergent change. However, little research has focused on how the effectiveness of different change approaches is affected by a bureaucratic organizational structure.

In organization theory, the term bureaucracy refers to an ideal typical organization that stresses a formal hierarchy, rules, specialization, impersonality, routine and merit-based employment (
Morgan, 1996). In general, the term bureaucracy is more often used to refer to negative aspects of rule-based, mechanistic organizations than to the ideal type organizational structure. The degree to which an organization is bureaucratic is dependent, among others, on the degree of centralization and formalization (
Aiken and Hage, 1971,

Burns and Stalker, 1961

Mintzberg, 1979

Rainey (2003)

Rainey and Bozeman (2000)
also list red tape as a characteristic of bureaucracies. In this study, a bureaucratic organizational structure is defined as a high degree of centralization, formalization and red tape (compare

Burns and Stalker, 1961

Rainey, 2003
). Centralization refers to the degree to which members participate in decision-making (
Aiken & Hage, 1968). Formalization is the degree to which organizational activities are manifested in written documents regarding procedures, job descriptions, regulations and policy manuals (
Hall, 1996). Red tape concerns the negative effects of these rules, procedures and instructions (
Bozeman & Scott, 1996). Red tape is, by this definition, thus necessarily a pathology and formalization can be said to lead to red tape but is not by itself red tape (
Pandey & Scott, 2002).

As there is little empirical evidence concerning the direct relationships between organizational structure and processes of change, we base our arguments on the broader literature about organization theory, innovation, entrepreneurship and strategy. A high degree of centralization can be said to diminish the likelihood that organizational members seek new or innovative solutions (
Atuahene-Gima, 2003,
Damanpour, 1991). Similarly, centralization is related to stability, while innovative, prospecting organizations are characterized by decentralized decision-making structures (
Andrews, Boyne, Law, & Walker, 2007).
Moon (1999) argues that centralized organizations are less responsive to environmental demands, because mid-level managers and operators are less autonomous and flexible in their interactions with clients. A high degree of formalization can also be expected to impede processes of adaptation and learning. The amount of required paperwork and written rules tends to cause administrative delay and poor communication with costumers (
Hage & Aiken, 1970). Moreover, a high degree of formalization is negatively related to innovation (
Walker, 2008), experimentation and ad hoc problem solving efforts (
March & Simon, 1958) and managerial entrepreneurship (

Moon, 1999
). Red tape can also be expected to impede an organization’s capability to adapt to its environment, as it may cause unnecessary delays (

Bozeman & Scott, 1996
Moon and Bretschneider (2002) find that red tape is negatively related to the implementation of IT innovations.

Most of the above studies delve into the relationship between organizational structure and change. As such, a bureaucratic organizational structure can be expected to lead to the adoption of a planned approach to change, while a non-bureaucratic organizational structure would make the adoption of an emergent approach more likely. However, as the organizational structure forms the context in which changes take place, the organizational structure is seen as a moderating influence on the effectiveness of processes of change in this study (compare

Self et al., 2007
). Hypotheses are therefore formulated about the moderating influence of a bureaucratic organizational structure on the effectiveness of planned and emergent approaches to change:


The more bureaucratic the organizational structure, the more employee willingness to change is positively influenced by a planned process of change.


The less bureaucratic the organizational structure, the more employee willingness to change is positively influenced by an emergent process of change.

Methods, sample and measures

Case selection and methods

An organizational change within the Dutch public organization Urban Development Rotterdam (
Stadsontwikkeling Rotterdam) was selected as a case for this study. This organization is the result of a recent merger of two former organizational units: the Development Agency Rotterdam (DAR) and the Agency of City Construction and Housing (ACCH). The organization was selected because of the organization-wide changes in both the organizational structure and culture that were taking place at the moment of data collection. The departments within the organizational units approached the organizational changes in different ways. For some, the organization-wide changes resulted in programmatic, planned change processes. For other departments, the changes took the form of more gradual, emergent changes. A quantitative approach was used to address the study’s hypotheses. An online questionnaire was used to measure the perceptions of individual employees regarding the organizational structure, the leadership style of their direct supervisor and the current organizational changes in their organization. The data were collected in May 2012. In all, 580 of 1353 employees filled out the online survey, a response rate of 42.8%.


In order to account for the moderating effect of the bureaucratic structure on the relationship between the change process and willingness to change, two groups of respondents are compared that differ significantly on the degree of bureaucratic organizational structure. The measure of the degree of bureaucratic structure is outlined first. Subsequently, the method of distinguishing between high and low level of perceived bureaucratic structure is explained.

The conceptualization of bureaucratic structure in this study is a combination of separate measures for centralization, formalization and red tape (compare

Rainey, 2003

Aiken and Hage (1968)
propose a measure for centralization that consists of two dimensions: ‘participation in decision making’ and ‘hierarchy of authority.’ In an examination,
Dewar, Whetten, and Boje (1980) confirm the validity and reliability of these scales. In accordance with other research, for example
Jaworski and Kohli (1993) and
Pandey and Wright (2006), centralization is measured with the

Aiken and Hage (1968)
scale for ‘hierarchy of authority.’ This measure consists of five items that are measured on a fourpoint Likert scale. The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure is .864.

Aiken and Hage (1968)
also propose a measure for formalization. However,

Dewar et al. (1980)
conclude that the discriminant validity of these scales is unsatisfactory. Another measure is proposed by
Desphande and Zaltman (1982). This study uses a shortened version of this scale that is also used by

Jaworski and Kohli (1993)
. This measure consists of 7 items. The items are measured on a fourpoint Likert scale and the Cronbach’s alpha for this measure is .728. In order to assess the level of red tape experienced, the single item measure proposed by

Pandey and Scott (2002)
is used. According to the authors, this measure is most congruent with conceptual definitions offered by
Bozeman (1993) and

Bozeman and Scott (1996)

Significant differences exist in the degree in which the organizational structure of the departments within the organization is bureaucratic. Departments within the organization were classified according to the organizational unit they were formerly a part of. However, some departments (mostly staff departments such as personnel, finance and IT) in the merger organization are a mix of both DAR and ACCH employees. These cases were therefore removed from the dataset. The effective sample consists of 284 employees. A
t-test indicates that the reported score on perceived bureaucratic structure is significantly higher among respondents in former DAR departments than respondents in former ACCH departments (
F = 4.552,
p = .044). Although the concepts concerning the organizational structure are measured at an individual level, the data show that former DAR departments are significantly more bureaucratic than the departments that were part of ACCH. In order to account the moderating effect of organizational structure, a highly bureaucratic model (employees in DAR departments) is compared with a low bureaucratic model (employees in ACCH departments).


A full list of measures is given in appendix A. Unless stated otherwise, all measures were based on a five point Likert scale.

Planned change and emergent change. Despite the dominance of the planned and emergent approach to change in the literature on change management, the literature offers virtually no quantitative measures for these concepts. The only available measure is proposed by
Farrell (2000). This measure consists of six items for planned change and five items for emergent change and is measured on a seven point scale. The Cronbach’s alpha for the measure of planned change was unsatisfactory. Similar to the original study by

Farrell (2000)
and based on a factor and reliability analysis, three items of this scale for planned change scale were not included in the analysis. Despite these modifications, the Cronbach’s alpha is only .688.
1 The Cronbach’s alpha for the measure of emergent change is .739. However, one item was removed as it did not load on both the factor of both planned and emergent change in an exploratory factor analysis. As a result, the internal consistency of the scale was improved to a Cronbach’s alpha of .820, which can be considered to be very good (
DeVellis, 1991). However, these alterations make it apparent that the current available measures for planned and emergent change proposed by

Farrell (2000)
are not fully valid and reliable. This issue is further discussed in the discussion of this study.

Transformational leadership. The measure of
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) for transformational leadership was used. This measure consists of 21 items and contains the dimensions articulating vision, provide appropriate model, foster acceptance goals, high performance expectancy, individual support and intellectual stimulation. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .944.

Willingness to change. Willingness to change is measured based on the validated scale by

Metselaar (1997)
. The measure consists of 4 items with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .890. The concept willingness to change is preferred over other psychological constructs such as commitment to change (
Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002) or cynicism to change (
Bommer, Rich, & Rubin, 2005), because it not only measures employee attitudes about change, but also their behavioral intentions.

Controls. We control for age, education level (ranging from 1: Primary school through 7: Ph.D.) and organizational tenure. Moreover, dummy variables are included to account for the gender of respondents and whether or not respondents have a supervisory position.

Analysis and results

Descriptive statistics and correlations

The mean scores, standard deviations and correlations of all variables in this study are presented in
Table 1. The mean scores of the variables indicate that the average age of the sample is 45.8 years with an average tenure of 12.7 years. The average score on education level is 5.1 (range 1–7), which indicates a relatively highly educated workforce (5 = applied university). The majority of the respondents is male and 13% of the respondents has a supervisory position. The average scores on planned and emergent change are just below the theoretical mean of 4 on the 7-point Likert scale. The score on willingness to change shows a mild favorability toward the organizational changes in the organization. The correlations indicate a relatively strong correlation between planned and emergent change (.358,
p < .01). Moreover, all central variables (emergent change, planned change and transformational leadership) are positively and significantly related to employee willingness to change. Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlations. Empty Cell Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Age 45.80 10.19 1 2. Female gender (1 = yes) 0.37 0.24 −.204 ⁎⁎ 1 3. Education level 5.10 1.14 −.269 ⁎⁎ −.006 1 4 Tenure 12.74 10.37 .614 ⁎⁎ −.211 ⁎⁎ −.258 ⁎⁎ 1 5. Supervisory position (1 = yes) 0.13 .38 .185 ⁎⁎ −.149 ⁎ .102 .130 ⁎ 1 6. Planned change 3.73 1.19 .129 ⁎ −.092 −.092 .025 −.028 1 7. Emergent change 3.99 1.20 .118 −.063 −.082 .119 .131 ⁎ .358 ⁎⁎ 1 8. Transform leadership 3.20 0.64 .067 .019 −.029 −.026 .142 ⁎ .276 ⁎⁎ .269 ⁎⁎ 1 9. Willingness to change 3.57 0.73 .037 −.027 .127 ⁎ −.099 .206 ⁎⁎ .238 ⁎⁎ .220 ⁎⁎ .254 ⁎⁎ 1 ⁎ Indicates a significant effect on the p < .05 level. ⁎⁎ Indicates a significant effect on the p < .01 level. Regression analyses The hypotheses are tested by means of linear regression. Interaction variables were computed in order to account for the interaction effects between transformational leadership, planned change and emergent change (H1). The independent variables were therefore standardized for the analysis. Moreover, a low and high bureaucracy model are compared in order to account for the moderating effects of organizational structure (H2 and H3). The general model consists of both the low and high bureaucracy model. Sample size, constant and adjusted R square are reported for all three models. The regression analysis for the general model indicates that both planned and emergent processes of change are positively related to employee willingness to change. The effect of planned change is significant ( p < 0.05), while the effect of emergent change is not. Transformational leadership is also positively and significantly related to willingness to change. Of the control variables, age and supervisory position are positively related to willingness to change, while a negative relationship exists between tenure and employee willingness to change. In the low bureaucracy model, there are considerably less significant explanatory variables for employee willingness to change. Neither the planned approach to change nor the emergent approach to change is positively related to employee willingness to change. The control variables indicate that supervisors are significantly more likely to have a positive attitude toward organizational changes in the organization. In the high bureaucracy model, both planned and emergent change are positively and significantly related to employee willingness to change. Hypothesis 2 is supported by the data because planned change is positively related to employee willingness to change in the high bureaucracy model, but not in the low bureaucracy model. Hypothesis 3 is rejected, since emergent change is also more effective in the high bureaucracy model than in the low bureaucracy. Similar to the general model, the effects of age and tenure are significant in the high bureaucracy model. The positive effect of transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors is no longer significant in the low and high bureaucracy model. The regression analyses in Table 2 indicate that there are two significant interaction effects. In the general model, the interaction effect between planned change and transformational leadership is negatively related to employee willingness to change. In Fig. 1, this interaction-effect is plotted to allow interpretation. Table 2. Regression analysis. Empty Cell General model ( n = 200) Low bureaucracy model ( n = 105) High bureaucracy model ( n = 95) Constant 3.630 3.538 3.657 Age .179 ⁎ .043 .259 ⁎ Gender .061 .073 .049 Education level .086 .111 .129 Tenure −.226 ⁎⁎ .019 −.406 ⁎⁎⁎ Supervisor .172 ⁎ .224 ⁎ .096 Planned change .169 ⁎ .113 .251 ⁎ Emergent change .139+ −.038 .237 ⁎ Transformational leadership .142 ⁎ .199 + .154 Planned ⁎ transformational −.173 ⁎ −.124 −.085 Emergent ⁎ transformational .046 .222 ⁎ −.106 Adjusted R square .192 .109 .336 + Indicates a significant effect on the p < .1 level. ⁎ Indicates a significant effect on the p < .05 level. ⁎⁎ Indicates a significant effect on the p < .01 level. ⁎⁎⁎ Indicates a significant effect on the p < .001 level. 1. Download : Download full-size image Fig. 1. Interaction effect planned change and transformational leadership (general model). The interaction effect plotted in Fig. 1 indicates that the effectiveness of a planned process of change is dependent on the leadership style of the direct supervisor. In processes that have little characteristics of a planned change process, a higher degree of transformational leadership contributes to a higher level of employee willingness to change than a lower degree of transformational leadership. However, in a process that has many characteristics of planned change, this added value of a high degree of transformational leadership is no longer present. The second interaction effect in hypothesis 1 concerns the combined effectiveness of an emergent change approach and transformational leadership. Hypothesis 1 states that a higher degree of transformational leadership of direct supervisors will not increase the effectiveness of an emergent approach to change. In the general model, the data support the data, as the effect of the computed interaction effect is not significant. However, in the low bureaucracy model, the relationship between emergent change and employee willingness to change is positively and significantly affected by a transformational leadership style. In order to interpret the effect, the interaction effect is plotted in Fig. 2. 1. Download : Download full-size image Fig. 2. Interaction effect emergent change and transformational leadership (low bureaucracy model). The interaction effect in Fig. 2 indicates that the effectiveness of emergent change is dependent on the transformational leadership activities of direct supervisors. In processes with little emergent characteristics, the degree of employee willingness to change is not affected by transformational leadership behavior. However, in highly emergent processes of change, a high degree of transformational leadership behavior significantly increases the effectiveness of an emergent approach to change. Moreover, the absence of transformational leadership in this situation will decrease the effectiveness of an emergent change process. Summing up the results of both interaction effects, the data contradict hypothesis 1. According to our study, a transformational leadership style is of little added value in planned processes of change. Rather, the effects of a planned change approach and the transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors seem interchangeable: either a transformational leadership style or a highly planned approach will lead to comparable levels of employee willingness to change but a combination of both does not lead to increased effectiveness. In contrast, and contrary to hypothesis 1, transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors does increase the effectiveness of emergent processes of change, but only in situations with a low degree of bureaucratic organizational structure. Discussion, limitations, and implications for future research The results of the study are contrary to the theoretical expectations expressed in hypothesis 1. It was assumed that transformational leadership of the direct supervisor would be beneficial in planned processes of change, while it would be redundant in more emergent change. However, the results indicate that in highly planned processes of change, a low and high degree of transformational leadership results in an equal level of employee support. A possible interpretation of this unexpected result is that planned processes of change are already very management driven. The leadership role is mostly filled in by higher level managers or a guiding coalition at the top level of the organization (e.g. Fernandez and Rainey, 2006 , Kotter, 1996 ). Because of this, the additional contribution of the leadership of direct supervisors may be very limited. Moreover, the result concerning the effect of transformational leadership in an emergent process of change is contrary to hypothesis 1. In the general model, there is no significant moderating effect of direct supervisor transformational leadership behavior on the relationship between emergent change and employee willingness to change, which is according to the theoretical expectations. However, in the low bureaucracy model, a significant interaction effect does exist. When change processes take on more emergent characteristics, the transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors becomes a crucial condition for creating employee support. Without a transformational leadership role of direct supervisors, an emergent change approach is negatively related to employee willingness to change. The presence of transformational leadership behavior results in a positive relationship between an emergent change approach and the willingness of employees to implement change. While planned change approaches rely on the leadership of senior managers to be enacted ( Kanter et al., 1992 , Kotter, 1996 ), emergent processes of change are more bottom-up and devolved. Such change processes therefore rely more on the leadership behavior of lower level managers ( Borins, 2002, Van der Voet et al., 2013 ). In the literature on organizational change, planned change is assumed to be more appropriate for highly bureaucratic organizations (e.g. Coram and Burnes, 2001 , Weick and Quinn, 1999 ). In their study of organizational change in six Australian federal agencies, Stewart and Kringas (2003) indeed find that top-down approaches are most applied. In this study, the effectiveness of planned and emergent change processes was examined. The results of this study indicate that both planned and emergent processes of change are viable options for bureaucratic organizations. This could indicate that a combination of both planned and emergent change may be an effective approach to organizational change in bureaucratic organizational settings. This result is coherent with Ryan et al. (2008) , who have argued that planned change should be supplemented with other change strategies. Several authors (for example Beer and Nohria, 2000 , Sminia and Van Nistelrooij, 2006 ) discuss the simultaneous application of both planned and emergent approaches to change. In a highly bureaucratic organization, an organizational change may require the top-down activation of employees by a top-management intervention, after which a bottom-up process may be initiated in which employees are involved in establishing the exact course of action. The data do not support hypothesis 3. Emergent change in itself was not found to be significantly related to employee willingness to change in the low bureaucracy model. In this situation, emergent change can only be an effective approach to change when combined with a transformational leadership style of direct supervisors. Most of the research concerning planned and emergent change is qualitative. In this study, planned and emergent change were measured with a quantitative measurement scale. The only available measure in the literature is proposed by Farrell (2000) . However, both the reliability and validity of the measurement instrument has proven to be insufficient. First, the internal consistency of the scale for planned change is below the generally accepted Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70. Even after dismissing several items, as is also done by the original author, the internal consistency remains below .70. Second, one of the items of the scale of emergent is poorly formulated as it loads on both the factor of planned and emergent change in a factor analysis. Third, the validity of both scales is questionable, as the items do not encompass the full concepts of planned and emergent change. The scale for planned change includes items that account for the top-down, management-driven en controlled nature of planned change, but misses items that account for the clearly formulated objectives ( By, 2005 ), the desired future state ( Burnes, 1996 , Burnes, 2004 ) and the emphasis on the resolution of conflict ( Burnes et al., 2009 ). The measure for emergent change is based entirely on aspects of organizational learning and environmental adaptation, and misses aspects of the local, bottom-up, participative nature of emergent change ( Bamford & Forrester, 2003 ) and its emphasis on improving organizational capability ( Beer and Nohria, 2000 , Weick et al., 2000). A first recommendation for future research is therefore to improve the available measures for planned and emergent change by elaborating on the conceptual range of the measures and testing the consistency of the measure in a confirmatory factor analysis. Follow-up research based on a mixed mode approach may prove especially fruitful. The combined application of qualitative and quantitative research methods may contribute to the formulation of quantitative measures, informed by an earlier qualitative step. Mixed method research may thus result in the creation of better, more informed quantitative measures and more resonance between qualitative and quantitative research on change management. Another limitation of this study concerns the internal validity of the results. Both dependent and independent variables were measured on the employee level. Therefore, the relationships between the variables may be partly due to the method of data collection ( Meier and O’Toole, 2012, Podsakoff et al., 2003). Causal inferences are based on theory, rather than observed temporal sequence. A second recommendation for future research is therefore to measure concepts on multiple levels in the organizational hierarchy and among different groups of respondents, as well as using a longitudinal research design. Because this study is based on a case-based design, the study’s results may not be statistically generalized beyond the case that was studied. Similar to most of the change management literature, generalizing results is difficult because of organizational, historical and contextual differences. Future research concerning change management in public organizations should thus emphasize analytical rather than statistical generalization ( Yin, 2009). Despite these limitations, this study has shown that the specific characteristics of public organizations may have important implications for effectiveness of different change approaches and leadership. Another recommendation for future research is therefore to devote more attention to the research of contextual factors influencing the effectiveness and appropriateness of different approaches to change. A possible direction for future research could be the influence of the complex and political environment of public organizations on the implementation and leadership of organizational change. Conclusion The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public organization. The study assessed to what extent employee willingness to change is explained by transformational leadership and different change approaches. Moreover, the study examined to what extent these relationship were affected by the bureaucratic organizational structures that typically characterizes public organizations. The results indicate that both the planned and emergent approach to change are effective ways of bringing about change in a bureaucratic context. The transformational leadership behavior of direct supervisors contributes little to planned processes of change. However, transformational leadership is crucial in emergent processes of change, but only in a non-bureaucratic context. Although the literature on change management mostly emphasizes the leadership of senior managers, the leadership role of direct supervisors should not be overlooked during organizational change in public organizations. Appendix A. Measures Centralization ( Aiken and Hage, 1968 , Jaworski and Kohli, 1993 , Pandey and Wright, 2006 ) 1. There can be little action taken here until a supervisor approves a decision. 2. A person who wants to make his own decision would be quickly discouraged here. 3. Even small matters have to be referred to someone higher up for a final answer. 4. I have to ask my boss before I do almost anything. 5. Any decision I make has to have my boss’ approval. Formalization ( Desphande and Zaltman, 1982, Jaworski and Kohli, 1993 ) 1. I feel that I am my own boss in most matters. (R) 2. A person can make his own decisions without checking with anybody else. (R) 3. How things are done around here is left up to the person doing the work. (R) 4. People here are allowed to do almost as they please. (R) 5. Most people here make their own rules on the job. (R) 6. The employees are constantly being checked on for rule violations. 7. People here feel as though they are constantly being watched to see that they obey all the rules. Red tape ( Pandey and Scott, 2002 ) 1. If red tape is defined as burdensome administrative rules and procedures that have negative effects on the organization’s effectiveness, how would you assess the level of red tape in your organization? Planned change ( Farrell, 2000 ) 1. Emanates from senior management.+ 2. Occurs through company-wide change programs. 3. Occurs through changing individual knowledge and attitudes.+ 4. Occurs in an unplanned fashion.+ (R) 5. Occurs through a systematic process of well-managed events. 6. Is monitored through regular progress survey. Emergent change ( Farrell, 2000 ) 1. Occurs through continually learning about our environment. 2. Occurs by encouraging employees to understand and adapt to changing circumstances in our environment. 3. Is part of an ongoing process of adapting to our environment. 4. Is a slow process, which emerges over time.+ 5. Is about matching the organizations’ capabilities to the business environment. Transformational leadership ( Podsakoff et al., 1990 ) My direct supervisor … Articulating vision 1. Is always seeking new opportunities for the organization 2. Inspires others with his/her plans for the future. 3. Is able to get others committed to his/her dream. Provide appropriate model 1. Leads by “doing,” rather than simply by “telling.” 2. Leads by example. 3. Provides a good model for me to follow. Foster acceptance goals 1. Fosters collaboration among work groups. 2. Encourages employees to be “team players.” 3. Gets the group to work together for the same goal. 4. Develops a team attitude and spirit among employees. High performance expectancy 1. Shows us that he/she expects a lot from us. 2. Insists on only the best performance. 3. Will not settle for second best. Individual support 1. Acts without considering my feelings. (R) 2. Shows respect for my personal feelings. 3. Behaves in a manner thoughtful of my personal needs. 4. Treats me without considering my personal feelings. (R) Intellectual stimulation 1. Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways. 2. Asks questions that prompt me to think. 3. Has stimulated me to rethink the way I do things. 4. Has ideas that have challenged me to reexamine some of the basic assumptions of my work Willingness to change 1. I intend to try to convince employees of the benefits the changes and developments within Urban Development Rotterdam will bring. 2. I intend to put effort into achieving the goals of the changes and developments within Urban Development Rotterdam. 3. I intend to reduce resistance among employees regarding the changes and developments within Urban Development Rotterdam. 4. I intend to make time to implement the changes and developments within Urban Development Rotterdam. + Indicates item is not included in the analysis (R) Indicates item is reversed in the analysis References Ackroyd et al., 2007 S. Ackroyd, I. Kirkpatrick, R.M. Walker Public management reform in the UK and its consequences for professional organization: A comparative analysis Public Administration, 85 (1) (2007), pp. 9-26 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Aiken and Hage, 1968 M. Aiken, J. Hage Organizational interdependence and intraorganizational structure American Sociological Review, 33 (6) (1968), pp. 912-930 CrossRef Google Scholar Aiken and Hage, 1971 M. Aiken, J. Hage The organic organization and innovation Sociology, 5 (1) (1971), pp. 63-82 CrossRef Google Scholar Allison, 1979 G. Allison Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant respects? J. Shafritz, A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration, Wadsworth, Belmont (1979) [1992] Google Scholar Andrews et al., 2007 R. Andrews, G.A. Boyne, J. Law, R.M. Walker Centralization, organizational strategy, and public service performance Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19 (1) (2007), pp. 57-80 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999 A.A. Armenakis, A.G. Bedeian Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s Journal of Management, 25 (3) (1999), pp. 293-315 Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Atuahene-Gima, 2003 K. Atuahene-Gima The effects of centrifugal and centripetal forces on product development speed and quality: How does problem solving matter? Academy of Management Journal, 46 (3) (2003), pp. 359-374 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Bamford and Forrester, 2003 D.R. Bamford, P.L. Forrester Managing planned and emergent change within an operations management environment International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 23 (5) (2003), pp. 546-564 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Bartunek et al., 2006 J.M. Bartunek, D.M. Rousseau, J. Rudolph, J.A. DePalma On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42 (2) (2006), pp. 182-206 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Bass, 1985 B.M. Bass Leadership and performance beyond expectations Free Press, New York (1985) Google Scholar Bass, 1999 B.M. Bass Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (1) (1999), pp. 9-32 Google Scholar Beer and Nohria, 2000 M. Beer, N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2000) Google Scholar Bommer et al., 2005 W.H. Bommer, G.A. Rich, R.S. Rubin Changing attitudes about change: Longitudinal effects of transformational leader behavior on employee cynicism about organizational change Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (7) (2005), pp. 733-753 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Borins, 2002 S. Borins Leadership and innovation in the public sector Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23 (8) (2002), pp. 467-476 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Boyne, 2002 G.A. Boyne Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39 (1) (2002), pp. 97-122 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Boyne, 2006 G.A. Boyne Strategies for public service turnaround: Lessons from the private sector? Administration & Society, 38 (3) (2006), pp. 365-388 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Boyne et al., 2003 G.A. Boyne, C. Farrell, J. Law, F. Powell, R.M. Walker Evaluating public management reform: Principles and practice Open University Press, Buckingham (2003) Google Scholar Bozeman, 1993 B. Bozeman A theory of government red tape Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3 (3) (1993), pp. 273-303 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Bozeman and Scott, 1996 B. Bozeman, P. Scott Bureaucratic red tape and formalization: Untangling conceptual knots The American Review of Public Administration, 26 (1) (1996), pp. 1-17 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Burke, 2010 W.W. Burke Organization change: Theory and practice Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2010) Google Scholar Burnes, 1996 B. Burnes No such thing as … a “one best way” to manage organizational change Management Decision, 34 (10) (1996), pp. 11-18 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Burnes, 2004 B. Burnes Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies? The case of XYZ construction International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24 (9) (2004), pp. 886-902 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Burnes et al., 2009 B. Burnes Organizational change in the public sector: The case for planned change R.T. By, C. Macleod (Eds.), Managing organizational change in public services: International issues, challenges and cases, Routledge, London and New York (2009) Google Scholar Burnes, 2011 B. Burnes Introduction: Why does change fail, and what can we do about it? Journal of Change Management, 11 (4) (2011), pp. 445-450 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Burns and Stalker, 1961 T. Burns, G.M. Stalker The management of innovation Oxford University Press, Oxford (1961) Google Scholar By, 2005 R.T. By Organizational change management: A critical review Journal of Change Management, 5 (4) (2005), pp. 369-380 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Chustz and Larson, 2006 M.H. Chustz, J.S. Larson Implementing change on the front lines: A management case study of West Feliciana Parish hospital Public Administration Review, 66 (5) (2006), pp. 725-729 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Conger, 1999 J.A. Conger Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2) (1999), pp. 145-169 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Coram and Burnes, 2001 R. Coram, B. Burnes Managing organizational change in the public sector: Lessons from the privatization of the Property Service Agency The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14 (2) (2001), pp. 94-110 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Damanpour, 1991 F. Damanpour Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3) (1991), pp. 555-590 Google Scholar Den Hartog et al., 1997 D.N. Den Hartog, J.J. Van Muijen, P.L. Koopman Transactional versus transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70 (1) (1997), pp. 19-34 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Desphande and Zaltman, 1982 R. Desphande, G. Zaltman Factors affecting the use of market research information: A path analysis Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (1) (1982), pp. 14-31 Google Scholar DeVellis, 1991 R.F. DeVellis Scale development: Theory and applications Sage, Newbury Park, CA (1991) Google Scholar Devos et al., 2007 G. Devos, M. Buelens, D. Bouckenooghe Contribution of content, context and process to understanding openness to organizational change: Two experimental simulation studies The Journal of Social Psychology, 147 (6) (2007), pp. 607-630 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Dewar et al., 1980 R.D. Dewar, D.A. Whetten, D. Boje An examination of the reliability and validity of the Aiken and Hage scales of centralization, formalization, and task routineness Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (1) (1980), pp. 120-128 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Eisenbach et al., 1999 R. Eisenbach, K. Watson, R. Pillai Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12 (2) (1999), pp. 80-88 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Farnham and Horton, 1996 D. Farnham, S. Horton Managing people in the public services Macmillan, London (1996) Google Scholar Farrell, 2000 M.A. Farrell Developing a market-oriented learning organization Australian Journal of Management, 25 (2) (2000), pp. 201-222 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Fernandez and Pitts, 2007 S. Fernandez, D.W. Pitts Under what conditions do public managers favor and pursue organizational change? The American Review of Public Administration, 37 (3) (2007), pp. 324-341 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Fernandez and Rainey, 2006 S. Fernandez, H.G. Rainey Managing successful organizational change in the public sector: An agenda for research and practice Public Administration Review, 66 (2) (2006), pp. 168-176 Article Download PDF CrossRef Google Scholar Gill, 2002 R. Gill Change management – or change leadership? Journal of Change Management, 3 (4) (2002), pp. 307-318 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Hage and Aiken, 1970 J. Hage, M. Aiken Social change in complex organizations Random House, New York (1970) Google Scholar Hall, 1996 R.H. Hall Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1996) Google Scholar Heinrich, 2002 C.J. Heinrich Outcome-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness Public Administration Review, 62 (6) (2002), pp. 712-725 Google Scholar Hennessey, 1998 J.T. Hennessey “Reinventing” government: Does leadership make a difference? Public Administration Review, 58 (1998), pp. 322-332 Google Scholar Herold et al., 2007 D.M. Herold, D.B. Fedor, S. Caldwell Beyond change management: A multilevel investigation of contextual and personal influences on employees’ commitment to change Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4) (2007), pp. 942-951 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Herold et al., 2008 D.M. Herold, D.B. Fedor, S. Caldwell, Y. Liu The effects of change and transformational leadership on employees’ commitment to change: A multilevel study Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (2) (2008), pp. 346-357 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002 Herscovitch, Meyer Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3) (2002), pp. 474-487 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Higgs and Rowland, 2005 M.J. Higgs, D. Rowland All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership Change Management Journal, 5 (2) (2005), pp. 121-151 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Higgs and Rowland, 2010 M.J. Higgs, D. Rowland Emperors with clothes on: The role of self-awareness in developing effective change leadership Journal of Change Management, 10 (4) (2010), pp. 369-385 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Higgs and Rowland, 2011 M.J. Higgs, D. Rowland What does it take to implement change successfully? A study of the behaviors of successful change leaders Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47 (3) (2011), pp. 309-335 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Isett et al., 2012 K.R. Isett, S.A.M. Glied, M.S. Sparer, L.D. Brown When change becomes transformation: A case study of change management in Medicaid offices in New York city Public Management Review, 15 (1) (2012), pp. 1-17 Google Scholar Jaworski and Kohli, 1993 J. Jaworski, A.K. Kohli Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences Journal of Marketing, 57 (3) (1993), pp. 53-70 Google Scholar Kanter et al., 1992 R.M. Kanter, B.A. Stein, T.D. Jick The challenge of organizational change The Free Press, New York (1992) Google Scholar Karp and Helgø, 2008 T. Karp, T.I.T. Helgø From change management to change leadership: Embracing chaotic change in public service organizations Journal of Change Management, 8 (1) (2008), pp. 85-96 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Kickert, 2007 W.J.M. Kickert Public management reforms in countries with a Napoleonic state model: France, Italy and Spain Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2007) Google Scholar Kickert, 2010 W.J.M. Kickert Managing emergent and complex change: The case of the Dutch agencification International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76 (3) (2010), pp. 489-515 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Kickert, 2013 W.J.M. Kickert The specificity of change management in public organizations: Conditions for successful organizational change in Dutch ministerial departments The American Review of Administrative Sciences (2013) [Advanced online publication] Google Scholar Klarner et al., 2008 P. Klarner, G. Probst, R. Soparnot Organizational change capacity in public services: The case of the world health organization Journal of Change Management., 8 (1) (2008), pp. 57-72 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Kline, 1999 P. Kline The handbook of psychological testing Routledge, London (1999) Google Scholar Kotter, 1996 J.P. Kotter Leading change Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1996) Google Scholar Kuipers et al., 2013 B.S. Kuipers, M. Higgs, W.J.M. Kickert, L. Tummers, J. Grandia, J. Van der Voet Managing change in public organizations: A review of the literature between 2000 and 2010 Public Administration (2013), 10.1111/padm.12040 [advanced online publication] Google Scholar Liguori, 2012 M. Liguori The supremacy of the sequence: Key elements and dimension in the process of change Organization Studies, 33 (4) (2012), pp. 507-539 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Liu, 2010 Liu, Y. (2010). When change leadership impacts commitment to change and when it doesn’t. A multi-level multi- dimensional investigation (Doctoral dissertation). Georgia Institute of Technology. Google Scholar March and Simon, 1958 J.G. March, H. Simon Organizations John Wiley and Sons, New York (1958) Google Scholar McNulty and Ferlie, 2004 T. McNulty, E. Ferlie Process transformation: Limitations to radical organizational change within public service organizations Organization Studies, 25 (8) (2004), pp. 1389-1412 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Meier and O’Toole, 2012 K.J. Meier, L.J. O’Toole Jr Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory (2012), 10.1093/jopart/mus057 [advanced online publication] Google Scholar Metselaar, 1997 Metselaar, E.E. (1997). Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the DINAMO (Doctoral dissertation). Free University of Amsterdam. Google Scholar Mintzberg, 1979 H. Mintzberg The structuring of organizations Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1979) Google Scholar Moon, 1999 M.J. Moon The pursuit of managerial entrepreneurship: Does organization matter? Public Administration Review, 59 (1) (1999), pp. 31-43 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Moon and Bretschneider, 2002 M.J. Moon, S. Bretschneider Does the perception of red tape constrain IT innovativeness in organizations? Unexpected results in a simultaneous equation model and implications Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12 (2) (2002), pp. 273-291 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Morgan, 1996 G. Morgan Images of organization Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA (1996) Google Scholar Ongaro, 2010 E. Ongaro Public management reform and modernization: Trajectories of administrative change in Italy, France, Greece, Portugal and Spain Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton (2010) Google Scholar Pandey and Scott, 2002 S.K. Pandey, P.G. Scott Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and measures Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12 (4) (2002), pp. 553-580 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Pandey and Wright, 2006 S.K. Pandey, S.K. Wright Connecting the dots in public management: Political environment, organizational goal ambiguity and public manager’s role ambiguity Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16 (4) (2006), pp. 511-532 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Pawar and Eastman, 1997 B.S. Pawar, K.K. Eastman The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination The Academy of Management Review, 22 (1) (1997), pp. 80-109 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Pettigrew et al., 1992 A.M. Pettigrew, E. Ferlie, L. McKee Shaping strategic change: Making change in large organizations: The case of the National Health Organization Sage Publications, London (1992) Google Scholar Pettigrew et al., 2001 A.M. Pettigrew, R.W. Woodman, K.S. Cameron Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4) (2001), pp. 697-713 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Podsakoff et al., 1996 P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, W.H. Bommer Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors Journal of Management, 22 (2) (1996), pp. 259-298 Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Podsakoff et al., 2003 P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, J.Y. Lee, N.P. Podsakoff Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5) (2003), pp. 879-903 Google Scholar Podsakoff et al., 1990 P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, R.H. Moorman, R. Fetter Transformational leadership behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors Leadership Quarterly, 1 (2) (1990), pp. 107-142 Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Pollitt, 2000 C. Pollitt Is the emperor in his underwear? An analysis of the impacts of public sector reform Public Management, 2 (2) (2000), pp. 181-199 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Pollitt and Bouckaert, 2004 C. Pollitt, G. Bouckaert Public management reform. A comparative analysis Oxford University Press (2004) Google Scholar Rafferty and Restubog, 2009 A.E. Rafferty, S.L.D. Restubog The impact of change process and context on change reactions and turnover during a merger Journal of Management, 36 (5) (2009), pp. 1309-1338 Google Scholar Rainey, 2003 H.G. Rainey Understanding and managing public organizations Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2003) Google Scholar Rainey and Bozeman, 2000 H.G. Rainey, B. Bozeman Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10 (2) (2000), pp. 447-469 Google Scholar Robertson and Seneviratne, 1995 P.J. Robertson, S.J. Seneviratne Outcomes of planned organizational change in the public sector: A meta-analytic comparison to the private sector Public Administration Review, 55 (6) (1995), pp. 547-557 CrossRef Google Scholar Rusaw, 2007 A.C. Rusaw Changing public organizations: Four approaches International Journal of Public Administration, 30 (3) (2007), pp. 347-361 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Russ, 2008 T.L. Russ Communicating change: A review and critical analysis of programmatic and participatory implementation approaches Journal of Change Management, 8 (3–4) (2008), pp. 199-211 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Ryan et al., 2008 N. Ryan, T. Williams, M. Charles, J. Waterhouse Top-down organizational change in an Australian government agency International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21 (1) (2008), pp. 26-44 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Seijts and Roberts, 2011 G.H. Seijts, M. Roberts The impact of employee perceptions on change in a municipal government Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32 (2) (2011), pp. 190-213 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Self et al., 2007 D.R. Self, A.A. Armenakis, M. Schraeder Organizational change content, process and context: A simultaneous analysis of employee reactions Journal of Change Management, 7 (2) (2007), pp. 211-229 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Shamir and Howell, 1999 B. Shamir, J.M. Howell Organizational and contextual influences on the emergence and effectiveness of charismatic leadership Leadership Quarterly, 10 (2) (1999), pp. 257-283 Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Sminia and Van Nistelrooij, 2006 H. Sminia, A. Van Nistelrooij Strategic management and organization development: Planned change in a public sector organization Journal of Change Management, 6 (1) (2006), pp. 99-113 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Spicker, 2012 P. Spicker Leadership: Perniciously vague concept International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25 (1) (2012), pp. 34-47 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Stewart and Kringas, 2003 J. Stewart, P. Kringas Change management-strategy and values in six agencies from the Australian public service Public Administration Review, 63 (6) (2003), pp. 675-688 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Stewart and O’Donnell, 2007 J. Stewart, M. O’Donnell Implementing change in a public agency: Leadership, learning and organizational resilience International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20 (3) (2007), pp. 239-251 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Thomas, 1996 P.G. Thomas Beyond the buzzwords: Coping with change in the public sector International Review of Administrative Sciences, 62 (1) (1996), pp. 5-29 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Tummers et al., 2012 L.G. Tummers, A.J. Steijn, V.J.J.M. Beckers Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement public policies: Content, context and personality characteristics Public Administration, 90 (3) (2012), pp. 716-736 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Van der Voet et al., 2013 J. Van der Voet, S.M. Groeneveld, B.S. Kuipers Talking the talk or walking the walk? The leadership of planned and emergent change in a public organization Journal of Change Management (2013), 10.1080/14697017.2013.805160 [advance online publication] Google Scholar Walker, 2008 R.M. Walker An empirical evaluation of innovation types and organizational and environmental characteristics: Towards a configuration framework Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18 (4) (2008), pp. 591-615 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Weick et al., 2000 K.E. Weick Emergent change as a universal in organizations M. Beer, N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2000) Google Scholar Weick and Quinn, 1999 K.E. Weick, R.E. Quinn Organizational change and development Annual Review Psychology, 30 (1999), pp. 361-386 View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Yin, 2009 R.K. Yin Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.), Sage, Los Angeles (2009) Google Scholar Zorn et al., 2000 T.E. Zorn, D.J. Page, G. Cheney Nuts about change: Multiple perspectives on change-oriented communication in a public sector organization Management Communication Quarterly, 13 (4) (2000), pp. 515-566 CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar Cited by (91) · A survey of Circular Economy initiatives in Portuguese central public sector organisations: National outlook for implementation 2022, Journal of Environmental Management   Forty years of European Management Journal: A bibliometric overview 2022, European Management Journal   Job well robotized! – Maintaining task diversity and well-being in managing technological changes 2022, European Management Journal   Leaders as change executors: The impact of leader attitudes to change and change-specific support on followers 2022, European Management Journal   Turning change resistance into readiness: How change agents’ communication shapes recipient reactions 2021, European Management Journal   Constructing managerial manoeuvring space in contradictory contexts 2021, European Management Journal · View all citing articles on Scopus 1 This value is below 0.70, which is seen as an acceptable degree of internal consistency. However, Kline (1999) states that a Cronbach’s alpha below .70 can be acceptable for a psychological construct. DeVellis (1991) states that while a value of over .70 is respectable, a value between .65 and .70 is minimally acceptable. View Abstract Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. · Analyzing relational sources of power at the interorganizational communication system European Management Journal, Volume 32, Issue 3, 2014, pp. 509-517 Download PDF   Dynamic evolution of alliance portfolios European Management Journal, Volume 32, Issue 3, 2014, pp. 423-433 Download PDF  

A Biblical-Covenantal
Perspective on

Organizational Behavior &

© Dr. Kahlib Fischer, 20


Basic organizational behavior concepts derived from Organizational Behavior (2009), by
Robbins, Pearson Custom Publishing.


  • CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2

  • LESSON 1: A Worldview Perspective on Organizational Behavior
  • ………………. 5

    What is a Worldview? ………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

    Worldview as a Home ………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

    What is Your Worldview? …………………………………………………………………………………… 6

    Defining the Christian Worldview ……………………………………………………………………….. 7

    Application to Organizational Behavior ……………………………………………………………….. 7

    The Biblical Idea of Covenant …………………………………………………………………………….. 8

    Important Covenantal Terms ……………………………………………………………………………… 8

    History of Covenant …………………………………………………………………………………………… 9

    A Covenantal Model for Organizational Behavior ……………………………………………….. 10

    OB/COVENANT MATRIX ……………………………………………………………………………….. 12

    Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12

  • LESSON 2: Individual Behavior in the Organization
  • …………………………………… 13

    Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13

    Personality and Abilities …………………………………………………………………………………… 13

    Values …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

    Ethical Perspectives …………………………………………………………………………………………. 15

    Outputs ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15

    Emotions and Moods ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 16

    Perceptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17

    Emotional Intelligence …………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

    Job Satisfaction……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

    Effective Job Attitudes …………………………………………………………………………………….. 19

    Decision Making Constraints ……………………………………………………………………………. 20

    Dealing with Constraints and Biases ………………………………………………………………….. 21

  • LESSON 3: Motivating Employees
  • ………………………………………………………………… 22

    Motivational Theories ……………………………………………………………………………………… 22

    Early Motivation Theories ………………………………………………………………………………… 22

    Contemporary Motivation Theories …………………………………………………………………… 23

    Employee Participation ……………………………………………………………………………………. 23

    Payment Programs ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24


    Flexible Benefits ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 24

    Intrinsic Rewards ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 25

    Biblical Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 25

  • LESSON 4: Group Behavior and Work Teams
  • ……………………………………………… 27

    Group Behavior ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27

    Stages of Group Development …………………………………………………………………………… 27

    Group Properties …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27

    Group Decision Making ……………………………………………………………………………………. 28

    Differences between Groups and Teams …………………………………………………………….. 29

    Types of Teams ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29

    Factors Relating to Successful Teams ………………………………………………………………… 30

    Turning Individuals into Team Players………………………………………………………………. 34

    When Should Teams Be Used? ………………………………………………………………………….. 35

  • LESSON 5: Organizational Communication
  • ………………………………………………… 36

    Formal and Informal Channels …………………………………………………………………………. 36

    Direction of Communication …………………………………………………………………………….. 36

    Interpersonal Communication ………………………………………………………………………….. 38

    Organizational Components ……………………………………………………………………………… 39

    Which Channel to Use? ……………………………………………………………………………………. 41

  • LESSON 6: Leadership
  • …………………………………………………………………………………… 42

    Defining leadership …………………………………………………………………………………………. 42

    Trait Theories …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 43

    Behavioral Theories …………………………………………………………………………………………. 44

    Contingency Theories ………………………………………………………………………………………. 45

    Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory ………………………………………………………….. 47

    Inspirational Approaches …………………………………………………………………………………. 47

    Authentic Leadership ………………………………………………………………………………………. 49

    Defining Trust …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 49

    Mentoring as Leadership ………………………………………………………………………………….. 50

    Self-Leadership ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 51

    Challenges to Leadership Construct…………………………………………………………………… 51

  • LESSON 7: Politics, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution
  • …………………………… 53

    Motivations for Power ……………………………………………………………………………………… 53

    Dependency and Power ……………………………………………………………………………………. 55

    Sources of Power……………………………………………………………………………………………… 55


    Power Tactics ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 57

    Sexual Harrassment ………………………………………………………………………………………… 58

    The Interactionist View of Conflict ……………………………………………………………………. 58

    The Conflict Process ………………………………………………………………………………………… 59

    Negotiation: Bargaining Strategies ……………………………………………………………………. 61

  • LESSON 8: Structure and Culture
  • …………………………………………………………………. 63

    History of Organizational Perspectives ………………………………………………………………. 63

    Work Specialization & Structure ……………………………………………………………………….. 64

    Control, Effectiveness & Structure …………………………………………………………………….. 65

    Departmentalization and StRucture ………………………………………………………………….. 66

    Cultures as Shared Meaning ……………………………………………………………………………… 66

    Creating a Positive Culture ……………………………………………………………………………….. 68

    Spirituality in the Workplace ……………………………………………………………………………. 69

  • LESSON 9: Human Resource Policies
  • ……………………………………………………………. 71

    Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 71

    Selection Practices ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 71

    Effective Selection Processes …………………………………………………………………………….. 73

    Training and Development ……………………………………………………………………………….. 75

    Performance Evaluation …………………………………………………………………………………… 76

    HR Policies and Labor Relations ………………………………………………………………………. 78

    Managing a Diverse Workforce …………………………………………………………………………. 79

  • LESSON 10: Organizational Change and Stress Management
  • ……………………. 81

    The Context of Change …………………………………………………………………………………….. 81

    Overcoming Resistance to Change …………………………………………………………………….. 82

    Strategies for Change ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 84

    Creating a Culture of Change ……………………………………………………………………………. 86

    Managing Stress through Covenantal behavior …………………………………………………… 87


    LESSON 1: A Worldview Perspective on
    Organizational Behavior


    For starters, it’s important to recognize that our view on organizational behavior, and indeed
    on life itself, is influenced by our worldview. A worldview is an intellectual, emotional, and
    spiritual framework by which every person views reality, makes sense of life, and applies
    meaning to every area of life.

    Everyone has a worldview, but the sad fact is that most people don’t really know that they
    have one, or how their unspoken assumptions about truth, meaning, values, and humanity
    influence every decision they make and every perception they have. As a result, most people’s
    worldviews are undeveloped, which means that most people are making decisions based not
    upon a coherent view of reality and life, but more likely an unclear, hodge-podge collection of
    vaguely defined and unverified assumptions about life. If we want to be effective leaders and
    managers in our organizations, and even more importantly, if we want to be successful human
    beings, shouldn’t we know what we believe and why we believe it?


    One way of better understanding one’s worldview and what it is made up of is to compare it
    the home in which we live. Consider your home—what characteristics do you ascribe to it? Do
    you think of it in terms of how many rooms it has, what type of furnishings it possesses, how
    big the yard is, etc.? Those are indeed relevant descriptors, but what about the foundation and
    framework of your home? When was the last time you thought about those two very
    important features of your home? Most of us give very little thought to those components
    because they are not visible. And yet, if either of those are structurally lacking, the house will
    fall, no matter how nice the yard, how many rooms the house has or how beautifully decorated
    the home is. It’s the same with our worldview perspectives—we rarely if ever give any thought
    to the foundational or framework assumptions associated with our worldviews. So let’s take a
    look at each of these vital components.

    The foundation of your worldview is what you believe about God. Do you believe in a
    personal, intelligent Creator-being who is eternal and created the universe, or do you believe
    that life evolved from nothing, by pure chance? You might even believe in some sort of
    nebulous God-like being who is out there but doesn’t do much to communicate with the rest of
    us. Perhaps you view Nature as some sort of spiritual entity to which we are all attached in


    some cosmic sort of way. If so, your worldview likely has more in common with an atheistic
    worldview foundation than a Christian-theistic one, because in both cases there is no personal,
    intelligent Creator being who interacts meaningfully and intelligently with His creation.
    The framework assumptions are based upon this foundation, just like the framework of any
    home is built upon the foundation. What one believes about God will determine what one
    believes about truth and meaning (epistemology), values (axiology), and who we are as
    human beings (ontology).


    A good leader or manager, and indeed, a successful organization, is able to evaluate internal
    strengths, weaknesses, and blind spots, so take a moment to evaluate any potential
    weaknesses or inconsistencies in your worldview.
    For starters, what do you believe about God? In the previous section, some basic options
    were presented with regards to who this God might be (or might not be). But now consider the
    implications of each choice, because your belief about God will greatly impact your perspective
    upon meaning, values, and humanity.

    For instance, epistemology is the study of how we arrive at truth and meaning. If you believe
    in a personal creator-being, it is possible to believe in absolute truth and meaning, because
    that God-being could communicate with us in meaningful and intelligent ways. But if you
    believe in random chance as the foundation for life, or in some sort of impersonal, spiritual
    “force” from which we all sprang, it should be no surprise if you’re a bit ambiguous in what you
    believe about truth. You might be more inclined to believe that there is no such thing as
    absolute truth or meaning, and that instead, everyone just sort of figures things out and makes
    sense of life on their own. However, if that is really true, then why do we all appeal to an
    inherent standard of right reasoning as we communicate with one another? Why do make
    logical appeals as we seek to persuade one another? It seems like this use of logic is more in
    keeping with an intelligent Creator-being than with starting point of random chance or a
    vague, impersonal, spiritual “other”.

    Likewise, axiology is the study of what we believe about values. If you believe in a personal
    Creator being, you are more likely to believe in eternal timeless values like love, justice,
    goodness and evil. If you’re not really sure what you believe about God, you might also find
    that you’re not really sure about the notion of eternal, timeless values. Perhaps you see
    concepts such as “love” as being more about what we do to protect ourselves—we “love”
    others because those people add some sort of value to our lives. And yet, the very fact that we
    understand the notion of altruistic, unconditional love and critique people who are not being
    pure in their alleged love of others suggests that there is an eternal Creator-being who has
    implanted in us an understanding of these eternal, timeless values. The same is true with the
    fact that we all seem to appeal to an inherent sense of justice and fairness as we interact with
    one another.


    Ontology is the study of who we are as human beings. If you are not sure what you believe
    about God, it could be that you are likewise not very sure about what you think about your
    existence as a human. If there is only a physical universe and no God that created it, then
    logically, it follows that we humans are nothing more than complex blobs of chemicals, atoms,
    and physical matter. If that is true, then why are we so interested in meaning and truth? Such
    yearnings and aspirations are far more consistent with the notion of a personal Creator-being
    who has made us in His image.


    So what IS a Christian worldview all about? Obviously the starting point for the Christian
    worldview—i.e., it’s foundational presupposition—is that there is in fact a personal, intelligent
    Creator being who is timeless and all-knowing. He created the universe and is separate from it,
    even though He is intimately involved in and with His creation. This is contrast to more Eastern
    mystical perspectives which deify nature or view God as part of nature.

    Epistemologically, God does communicate with intelligence and meaning, and obviously
    through the use of words. Importantly, Jesus Christ came to this earth as the living “Word of
    God” (see John 1).

    Axiologically, we see the God of the Bible balancing both love and justice through Jesus Christ
    and His work on the cross. Since God is perfectly good, He can’t tolerate any evil. Therefore,
    man, being less than perfect and bound by sin, needed to be punished. But since God is also
    perfectly loving, He can’t eliminate mankind, or else His perfect love would be compromised.
    The solution—Jesus Christ coming to earth and taking on flesh, and dying on the cross for our
    sins. As a man, He fulfilled God’s sense of absolute justice by ensuring that man was in fact
    punished for his sins. But since He was also God, He was perfect and therefore able to be the
    perfect sacrifice for us, thereby ensuring that God’s love was fulfilled on the cross and
    subsequent resurrection of Christ.

    Finally, ontologically, we know that we humans have value, not just because of what Christ did
    for us on the cross but also due to the very fact that Christ came into this world not just as God
    but as man, experiencing the same pain that we experienced in this dreary and difficult world.
    We do not have a God who cannot relate to our pains and struggles; on the contrary, we have a
    God who is intimately familiar with who we are and how we struggle.


    So how does this Christian worldview impact organizational behavior? First of all, since all
    truth is God’s truth, we can confidently study and research organizational behavior issues and
    concepts and at the same time apply Biblical truths to the field—the two are not mutually
    exclusive but rather complimentary.


    Secondly, we should discuss organizational behavior in terms of absolute truth and values.
    Moral relativism is not an option for us as we pursue a greater understanding of organizational

    Finally, we can be encouraged that everything we do within an organizational context—
    indeed in life itself—has eternal meaning and consequence. That is because we are valued in
    the eyes of our loving Creator and we know that He is intimately involved in everything we do.
    We should therefore act accordingly.


    Beyond these general worldview guidelines, there are some more specific Biblical applications
    to the field of organizational behavior. It will be argued here and throughout the rest of the
    lessons that the Biblical idea of covenant provides not only a unifying theme for understanding
    organizational behavior, but also a guiding normative framework for doing so.

    A covenant is a morally informed agreement among various parties to ratify and establish a
    long-term, mutually-affirming relationship. This idea is largely a Biblical one. In Scripture, God
    covenants with man, and in so doing, affirms the dignity of man. The result is that humans not
    only have free will and importance, but also responsibility to choose wisely.

    Furthermore, a covenant protects the right of all members by protecting the rights of every
    individual. Mutual accountability and affirmation are key aspects of any covenantal agreement
    and relationship.


    There are three key terms associated with the notion of covenant and covenantal behavior.
    The first is the Hebrew term hesed, which means “loving fulfillment of covenant obligation.” In
    Scripture, love and duty are intertwined and it is related to what Christ said when He told His
    followers to “go the extra mile” in serving one another. We see in Scripture that not only did
    God keep His promises to His people, but He went above and beyond His stated duties in
    showing mercy, forgiving, and caring for His people. We are required to do the same. We
    shouldn’t view our relationships with others as merely contractual obligations, but rather we
    should see our obligations as opportunities to truly love and care for one another. The
    implications for this interlinking of love and duty in an organization are significant. We all
    know leaders who have abused their powers and treated employees poorly, and we all know
    employees who have done the bare minimum (or worse) to collect a paycheck.

    Mutual accountability describes the process of interaction in a covenant in which everyone is
    accountable to everyone else. Not only are followers accountable to leaders, but leaders are


    also accountable to followers. Regardless of the nature of the relationship, be it peer to peer or
    leader to subordinate, mutual accountability is a requirement. This because in a covenant, no
    one enters into the covenantal agreement without first securing this obligation. Because no
    can be coerced into such a relationship, the only reason for doing so is to create a binding
    relationship that assures everyone’s mutual benefit. An organization that applies this will have
    greater integrity, teamwork, and decision-making because everyone is committed to serving
    and caring for everyone else, and leaders, as a general rule, cannot act arbitrarily and in a
    manner that mistreats employees.

    Federalism is a specific term in the field of covenantal theology that describes the sharing of
    power among all members of the covenant. It is therefore related to the notion of mutual
    accountability and is embodied on the organizational level by the ideas of empowerment,
    participatory decision making and decentralization (or more accurately, non-centralization,
    which signifies a sense of teamwork and shared responsibility regardless of organizational
    structure and departmental guidelines).


    Having laid that conceptual foundation, it is helpful to look at how the covenantal idea has
    influenced the history of mankind by ensuring greater freedom of common people and limiting
    the excesses of arbitrary leadership. In the Old Testament, the covenant idea was introduced
    by God to man. As mentioned earlier, by entering into a covenant with mere mortals, God
    affirmed their dignity and gave them both the freedom to choose to enter into the covenant
    and the responsibility to act within the moral terms of the covenant. It is no surprise, then,
    that even in Old Testament Israel, during the time of the judges and kings, that no one ruler
    had all the power nor was free from the accountability of the people and the prophets. Power
    was further shared among the twelve tribes, and the prophets criticized not only the king but
    also the people when they forgot the terms of the covenant, became greedy, pursued idols,
    and stopped caring for one another and for the poor. In the New Testament, the covenant idea
    is affirmed and expanded upon by Christ, who ushered in a new covenant with God that was
    now available to all of mankind, and not just the Jews. As the Gospel message spread
    throughout the world, so did the notion of covenant.

    During the Middle Ages, the covenantal idea was largely overlooked because Catholic
    theology emphasized a more hierarchical worldview in which Popes had absolute control and
    kings were not accountable to the people because they were viewed as being appointed by
    God. But during the Protestant Reformation, Reformers reclaimed the covenantal idea as
    they articulated the notion of the “Priesthood of a all believers.” Protestants argued that the
    only priest believers needed was Christ, and therefore they could have a personal relationship
    with God through Christ. This principle once again affirmed the value and dignity of each
    individual, and many have argued that it played a key role in not only developing the notion of
    capitalism in the West, but also contributed greatly to the notion that kings are accountable to
    the people and that Popes should not try to control political affairs. In fact, John Calvin, John


    Locke, John Knox, among others argued that when leaders significantly abuse their power, a
    material breach of the covenant has occurred, meaning that the people are no longer under
    the kings authority because the very covenant has been absolved through the tyrannical

    This theory of civil resistance and covenantal principles in general were carried into the
    American Founding Era. In an effort to flee religious and political persecution in Europe, many
    Protestants fled to the New World and brought their ideas with them. Research reveals that
    many of the colonies were further influenced by covenantal pacts and agreements. Often,
    church covenants made by various groups of Protestants as they came to the New World
    became the foundation for local governments and state constitutions. As the colonies became
    more established, the American colonists continued to base their notion of political freedom
    upon covenantal ideas by providing a rationale for breaking away from Great Britain based
    upon covenantal principles. Furthermore the very nature of American federalism, in which the
    national government shares power with the states, is a covenantal notion, as already
    mentioned. In fact, the word fedis is the Latin word for covenant. So America, with all of its
    political freedoms, has been greatly influenced by the notion of covenant.

    The question that we ask here is, given this impressive track record in political development,
    can the covenantal ideas and principles be applied to the field of organizational behavior in
    some way? Certainly, there is a difference between the relationship of ruler with citizens and
    business leaders with employees, but it will be demonstrated in this lesson and throughout
    subsequent lessons that there are indeed many points of application. This is due in large part
    because God has commanded all of us to love one another. Covenant is the means by which
    we do so.


    The covenantal idea provides a unifying theme for organizational behavior. First of all, the
    idea of hesed provides the attitude necessary for healthy organizational behavior. This
    attitude embodies notions such as servant leadership, mutual affirmation and care, teamwork,
    shared vision, “big picture” thinking, and customer care and community service. Big picture
    thinking is defined as organizational self-awareness, where employees understand the
    organization-wide goals, constraints, and strategies and where employees furthermore see
    how their job as well as their department fits into all of that.

    The principle of mutual accountability provides the foundation for organizational processes,
    and includes notions such as conflict resolution, participatory decision-making, empowerment,
    and an active process of dialogue between leaders and employees.


    The notion of federalism provides a structure for healthy organizations, and relates to ideas
    such as noncentralization, “boundaryless organizations”, organic structures.

    Clearly, all of these concepts are related to one another, and this division of covenantal
    principles into attitudes, processes, and structures therefore allows for a lot of overlap. The
    goal of any organization should be to create a self-sustaining, healthy culture where
    employees have taken ownership of organizational processes and goals and are working
    together to get things done and care for one another. In the next lesson, further application of
    covenantal principles to the field of organizational behavior will be demonstrated.




    Mutual Accountability


    INDIVIDUAL Personality &
    Values &


    Individual Decision-making

    GROUP Communication
    Group Decision-making

    Group Structure
    Work Teams

    ORGANIZATION Organizational

    Leadership & Trust
    Power & Politics

    Human Resource Policies &

    Structure & Design

    Another way to look at this covenantal model is to apply those concepts in a matrix with the
    levels of any organization—individual, group, and organization—combined with the various
    OB concepts we will be discussing in this course. The above diagram shows who the
    covenantal concepts are related to the general concepts of OB by organizational level.
    Throughout the rest of these lessons, we’ll be discussing each of these concepts in some form
    or another.


    In conclusion, a major theme of this first lesson is the assertion that the Biblical worldview
    provides the most comprehensive approach for making sense of life as well as organizational
    behavior. Students to not have to embrace this worldview, but they should be prepared to
    gain a deeper understanding of its implications in the workplace.
    Secondly, the Biblical idea of covenant will serve as a unifying theme and foundation for
    understanding organizational behavior. It is offered as a normative guideline for
    organizational “best practices” and will be further applied in subsequent lessons.

    Back to Table of Contents


    LESSON 2: Individual Behavior in the


    Lesson 2 provides an overview of individual behavior within an organizational context, and is
    divided up into two parts. Part 1 focuses on the inputs of individual behavior—the personality,
    abilities, values, and ethical framework that influence us as individuals and how we behave.
    Part 2 focuses on the outcomes that derive from these inputs—how we behave and make

    Before beginning with Part 1, a brief covenantal application is in order. Remember that
    covenants are based upon respect for each individual entering the covenant. No one can be
    coerced to enter into a covenantal relationship; rather, individuals enter into a covenant to
    protect their own rights. But they do so by caring for others in the relationship and affirming
    the rights of others. Therefore, mutual accountability and hesed are key motivators for
    individuals who want to preserve a covenantal relationship. In this lesson, we will see that
    these two components are necessary in forming productive individual behavior in an
    organizational context.


    As you progress through this course, you will have the opportunity to take a good amount of
    personality tests, and in so doing, you will hopefully begin to understand how personality and
    abilities are related, and also how they make each of us distinct from others.

    Furthermore, since every strength is a weakness and every weakness is a strength, we should
    be mindful of that when we interact with others. Rather than butting heads because of our
    differences, we should instead learn to appreciate those differences because in many ways, we
    can shore up each other’s weaknesses when we work together in a spirit of hesed and mutual
    accountability. Organizations need to be aware of this interplay of personalities and abilities
    in order to maximize teamwork and productivity.

    Obviously, when working with others, it is easier said than done to learn to appreciate one
    another’s strengths and our own weaknesses. Nobody likes to admit their shortcomings,
    especially when job advancement and recognition are on the line. As a result, competition,
    friction, impression management and political maneuvering characterize and undermine many
    organizations. That is why it is so helpful to be reminded of Biblical truth on the matter. First
    Corinthians 4:7 (ESV) says: “For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that
    you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?”


    Often we become prideful because of our unique strengths and abilities, and as such we forget
    that all that we have comes from God. We also forget that God is our source, loves us more
    than we love ourselves, and has a perfect plan for our lives in which our strengths are
    maximized. If we can remember this, we will be freed from all of the competition and
    manipulation referenced above.

    And we will also be freed from the bondage of needing recognition. It is easy define ourselves
    by our accomplishments and the work we do. It is a subtle deception. Even if we can get past
    the obvious sin of seeking fame, promotion, and self-glory through our work, and even if we
    truly want to do great things for the Lord, we still can stumble on the lie that validation and
    recognition on the job is proof that we are living meaningfully and doing great things for God,
    and that if we aren’t receiving recognition, we must not be doing anything meaningful. It’s not
    that we shouldn’t work hard, but rather that we shouldn’t work hard for the fear that if we
    aren’t recognized as successful in what we do, that we therefore are failures. As mentioned
    above, I Corinthians 4:7 already takes the wind out of the sails of pride when it comes to our
    abilities, because they are gifts from God. Sure, we work hard to develop those gifts, but who
    gave us the energy and the moral makeup to do so? We were not self-made creatures.
    Secondly, idolizing recognition on the job can turn into a substitute for the Father’s acceptance
    of us through Christ. We would never say that achievement and success in this world is
    superior to God’s acceptance of us, but when we define ourselves by recognition from others,
    and deem ourselves to be failures when we’re not recognized, and/or work feverishly for that
    recognition, that is implicitly what we believe. If we can get past this deception, we can
    achieve true success: learning to love and care for others, learning to recognize how God has
    gifted them, and learning to work with them and for them. This is foundational to the idea of a
    covenantal organization.


    Personal values comprise the next input of individual behavior. As mentioned in Lesson 1, we
    live in a Postmodern world which believes that truth is relative and that meaning is created by
    people in a group context. This belief lends itself to an attitude that says, “What works for
    me, works for me, and what works for you, works for you.” We find this approach especially
    appealing in an individualized culture like America. But ultimately, such an attitude will
    undermine a healthy organization. What happens if “what works” for one person is to be lazy
    on the job and not really care about anybody else? What happens if “what works” for another
    is to manipulate others, consolidate power, and abuse it?

    Of course, the Bible presents a different message. Absolute truth and values do exist, and they
    must be followed. Deep down, we know this and we intuitively understand that any
    organization that is going to succeed in the long term needs people who respect and care for
    one another. Conveniently, the idea of covenant embodies both the values of love (hesed) and
    justice (mutual accountability).



    Values and ethics are intertwined. Ethical perspectives provide a framework of values by
    which to make decisions for society (and organizations) . There are three basic ethical
    perspectives. Utilitarianism argues that the greatest good should be achieved for the greatest
    amount of people. As such, it emphasizes efficiency, productivity, and high profits, but in
    doing so, it can overlook the concerns and rights of individual members.

    A Rights based perspective puts more emphasis on the individual rights of every member. In
    an organizational context, it puts high value on the whistleblower. However, because of the
    emphasis on individual rights, it can produce an adversarial culture and lead to decreased
    teamwork as members are too focused on protecting their own rights above all else.

    A Justice perspective emphasizes the importance of fairness and impartiality, and in particular
    argues that resources and opportunities should be meted out evenly. However, this can lead
    to a sense of entitlement among members and can encourage a decrease in individual
    responsibility and effort.

    Happily, a covenantal perspective encompasses the best of each of these approaches while at
    the same time minimizing the weaknesses of each. For instance, a covenant is designed to
    incorporate a sense of justice and care for all of the members as a whole. This speaks to the
    concerns of both the justice and the utilitarian approach. But since it also emphasizes the
    importance of each member’s rights, it also affirms the Rights approach. Mutual
    accountability and hesed mandate that every member care for every other member and is
    accountable to every other member. This combination addresses the weaknesses mentioned
    above in three ways: 1) it ensures that no one is overlooked despite what the majority may
    want (a weakness of the Utilitarian approach), 2) it changes the decision-making process from
    one that is adversarial and competitive (a weakness of the Rights approach) to one that is
    based upon mutual care; and 3) links personal self-interest with caring for others, thereby
    removing the sense of entitlement that can exist with the Justice approach.

    Personality, abilities, values and ethics all influence how we behave as individuals. Now it’s
    time to take a look at the specific ways that these components influence our behavior, and so
    now we move to Part II: Outputs. Behavior can be defined in the following ways: emotions,
    moods, perceptions, attitudes, performance, and decision making.


    Personality, abilities, values and ethics all influence how we behave as individuals. Now it’s
    time to take a look at the specific ways that these components influence our behavior, and so
    now we move to Part II: Outputs. In this subsequent presentation, these outputs will be viewed
    in a sequential order: emotions and moods, which are the result of what we believe, lay the


    foundation for our perceptions. In turn, our perceptions impact our emotional intelligence,
    determine attitudes, job satisfaction and performance, and finally our decision-making skills.
    It will be important to understand this linkage.


    Emotions and moods can be confounding aspects of our psyche. Jeremiah 7:29 (ESV) says “The
    heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” Often we
    think of emotions as forces that influence us, and this is true. Our emotions inform how we
    interact with others and how we react to life situations. But on a deeper level, our values,
    ethics, and worldview all determine how we emotionally react to life and the world around us.
    This is embodied in the cognitive-affective-behavior link: what we think and believe (cognitive)
    influences how we feel (emotions and moods), which in turn influences how we act (behavior).

    It is also easy to think that circumstances or people cause our emotions, but this is not true—
    at most they influence our emotions. This is a big difference. Ultimately, what we believe
    about life and truth (our worldview) and what values and sense of ethics we possess inform
    how we emotionally react to circumstances and people. As Christians, the question we must
    ask ourselves is the degree to which Biblical truth is informing our emotions as opposed to
    some other worldview system. For instance, when we are overcome by stress and fear, it is not
    because the difficult circumstances are “causing” those emotions but rather because on a
    fundamental level, our worldview system is flawed—we really do not believe that God is in
    control and that He loves us more than we love ourselves. In our implicit desire to be in
    control, we reject these Biblical truths and when that happens, it is easy to feel overwhelmed
    by life. But when our emotions are grounded on the truth of God’s Word, how we respond to
    difficult circumstances (and people!) will instead be motivated by emotions of faith, love, and
    patience. Hebrews 4:12 says “for the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-
    edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and
    discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” When we look deeper into our hearts
    with the light of God’s Word, we see that at the root of all of our emotions is how we see
    ourselves before God and whether or not we view ourselves or God as being sovereign in our
    lives and in life in general.

    Finally, as this topic relates to organizational behavior, it is important to remember that our
    emotional state plays a large role in how we perform on the job. According to Affective
    Events theory, our emotional reactions to work influence our job performance and
    satisfaction. If we view our work as an act of worship to God, wherein we display His glory
    through our abilities and care for our customers, supervisors, colleagues, and subordinates, our
    emotions will fall in line accordingly, and we’ll find that we have much more joy in our



    Driving is a great example of how inconsistent we can be in our perception of ourselves and
    others. When we are driving down the road and someone is tailgating us, the tendency can be
    to assume that the person behind us is being rude and reckless in their driving. Perhaps we tap
    on the breaks to get them to back off a bit. But when we are in a hurry, and we come upon a
    slow driver in front of us, we conveniently conclude that the driver is rude, absent-minded, or
    perhaps in need of remedial driving lessons. Talk about a double standard! Of course,
    probably no one viewing this lecture has ever been guilty of this!

    This double-standard is influenced by basic heart beliefs. What we believe about ourselves
    influences our emotions, which in turn influences our perceptions of situations and
    circumstances. In turn, how we perceive situations in life greatly affects our decision-making
    ability, our interaction with others, and our job satisfaction and performance. Just as being
    grounded in the truth of God’s Word informs our emotions, so it informs our perceptions,
    particularly with regards to the many biases that taint our ability to perceive correctly.
    Scripture tells us that rather than relying on our own understanding and our own perception of
    reality, we should seek God’s wisdom in all that we do. But our sinful tendency is to do
    otherwise. Motivated by pride, we think that we are better than we really are (perfection
    error) and that we are actually smarter than we really are (intelligence error); thus we think
    that we really don’t need God. These prideful assumptions lead to two sets of biases in our
    perceptions. But before we discuss them, hopefully it is clear that the point of all of this is not
    to beat ourselves up or to degrade ourselves. The goal is not to think less of ourselves, but to
    think of ourselves less often. The goal is not to condemn ourselves as miserable wretches, but
    rather to rightfully acknowledge that our own pride gets in the way of even our best intentions.
    The goal is not to consider ourselves to be stupid but rather to not overestimate our own

    The first set of biases falls stems from a perfection error—we think we are better and more
    competent than we really are. For instance, the self-serving bias describes how we tend to de-
    emphasize external factors when things are going well for us and over-emphasize our own
    control over the results of a situation. Likewise, when things are not going so well for us or we
    are failing in a situation, rather than looking at any shortcomings on our part, we tend to blame
    external circumstances. How convenient, and how consistent with our very basic tendency to
    reject the truth that we need God’s guidance and intervention through Christ! The
    fundamental attribution error describes how harsh we are in judging others for failure when
    perhaps external factors played a greater role in the situation.

    Another subset of biases derive from the Intelligence Error (the tendency to think we are
    smarter than we really are). For instance, we have to be careful to not rely too heavily upon our
    own background and experiences in making perceptions (selective perception and
    stereotyping). It’s healthy to allow for the possibility that our past experience and the
    conclusions we have drawn from them are not sufficient for making an accurate perception.


    The halo effect occurs when we define a person by a single characteristic. Is it fair to do so?
    The answer is no, because no one consists of just one behavioral tendency. Likewise, the
    contrast effects bias describes how we inaccurately evaluate someone based upon how they
    relate to someone else we’ve recently encountered who is either higher or lower in a particular
    characteristic. For example, if a student has a professor who grades him one way, and then the
    next quarter has a professor who grades him another way, the temptation will be to judge the
    second professor in light of the first professor. But this really isn’t a very thorough or
    systematic basis for evaluating the second professor’s grading practices, is it?

    Having said all of that, it is good to conclude with a sober reminder of how these fundamental
    errors and their related biases can hurt us in our decision-making in life, and specifically in an
    organizational context. The decisions we make in interviewing job candidates, conducting
    performance evaluations, defining problems, and creating expectations can all be seriously
    flawed if we don’t first deal with these perception issues.


    Emotional Intelligence loosely describes the ability to not only be aware and in control of
    one’s own emotional issues, but also the ability to emotionally connect with and relate to
    others. It speaks to a certain degree of sensitivity to and awareness of others and what they
    might be thinking and feeling. Therefore, one can see how our perceptions are directly related
    to our EI quotient—the more our perceptions are tainted by the intelligence and perfection
    errors, the more self-absorbed we will be, and the lower our EI will be.

    EI coincides nicely with covenantal behavior, because it allows us to be more outward looking
    and therefore to be better equipped to care for others (hesed) and be accountable to them. It
    also enables us to be more effective in conflict resolution, again because we are looking past
    ourselves to better understand the concerns of others. It also improves our leadership ability
    and persuasiveness, because we are able to more effectively speak to the heart issues of
    those around us—the important values (such as love and justice) that can really motivate and

    Finally, from an organizational perspective, there are many benefits to having high EI. Job
    performance, creativity, motivation, customer service and decision-making are all positively
    impacted by EI.


    Thus far, the case has been made that we have an important role in controlling our emotions
    rather than allowing our emotions to control us and how we perceive reality. In contrast to the
    theology of self-help, we do not try to manipulate our emotions first and foremost through
    “positive thinking” or other such techniques, but rather by grounding our belief system in the


    truth of God’s Word. When that happens, our emotions will follow truth much like the car of
    a train follows the train engine. Behind the emotion “car” on that metaphorical train comes
    the “perception” car, followed in turn by the “attitude” car.

    As it pertains to this lesson, a major attitude upon which we will be focusing is that of job
    satisfaction. But rather than just focusing on how we are responsible for our the extent to
    which we are satisfied with our jobs, it will now be helpful to shift the emphasis a bit to why
    organizations should seek to improve their employees’ job satisfaction.

    This is so because high job satisfaction brings many benefits to organizations. Research has
    revealed a direct link between high job satisfaction and increased job performance,
    organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and customer satisfaction as well as a decrease in
    absenteeism, turnover, and workplace deviance.

    So how do organizational leaders enhance job satisfaction? First, it is important to note that
    part of job satisfaction is dependent upon the employee’s own perception of herself and her
    ability to do the job. This is known as positive core self-evaluation. If an employee is
    confident in her own abilities and skills on the job, she will be more satisfied with her job.
    Having said that, organizations can contribute to an employee’s positive core self-evaluation
    by providing training for employees and making sure that employees are used in jobs that
    draw on their strengths and abilities.

    Secondly, job satisfaction is not closely related to salary level. Sure, everyone likes making a
    lot of money, but in the long term, if an employee is miserable in his job, getting paid a lot of
    money will not do much to increase job satisfaction. At best, it will be a consolation for having
    a miserable job.

    On the contrary, job satisfaction has more to do with intrinsic factors. For instance, job
    satisfaction overlaps with terms such as Perceived organizational support (POS),
    organizational commitment, and employee engagement. It also is tied in with job involvement
    and psychological empowerment. All of these concepts tie into a covenantal approach where
    leaders empower employees to contribute meaningfully to their organization and furthermore
    care for employees (hesed) so that employees feel like an integral part of the organization. In
    addition to these factors, organizations can increase job satisfaction (in order to increase their
    positive core self-evaluation), by putting employees in challenging and stimulating jobs.


    Related to job satisfaction are those attitudes that will make an employee more effective in
    the workplace. These attitudes can be discussed in terms of competing dyads. For starters, an
    effective attitude is humility because it ensures that the employee is approachable, teachable,
    and professional. This is in contrast to a prideful attitude, where an employee can be arrogant,
    competitive, and un-teachable.


    A positive core-self evaluation is helpful for job effectiveness, as mentioned in the previous
    section. This attitude need not involve the Intelligence and Perfection Errors; on the contrary,
    it’s about confidence, not pride. On the other side, a person who always doubts himself and
    has low emotional stability and insecurity will have a hard time performing well on the job.
    Ironically, this low emotional stability can in fact be due to pride, because in our pride we reject
    God’s control over our lives and in so doing, we try to manage every aspect of our lives. This in
    and of itself can lead to emotional insecurity and instability, because deep down, we know that
    even though we really, really want to be in control, we really, really fail in so doing, regardless
    of how hard we try.

    High self-monitors are able to adjust their behavior to what is going on around them. It is
    related to EI, and involves being outward looking. In contrast, low self-monitors miss
    nonverbal cues found in workplace situations. It also stands in contrast to hypervigilence and
    impression management, both of which are motivated by fear and a certain degree of
    manipulation, as opposed to truly connecting with others and responding accordingly.
    Finally, the Big 5 attributes are helpful in a job setting. Attitudes/actions such as
    dependability, thoroughness, reliability ensure that an individual is a meaningful contributor to
    the job. In contrast, being a Type A workaholic can not only lead to burnout and exhaustion,
    but it can alienate team members and create a dysfunctional organizational culture where
    people do not feel connected to one another in meaningful ways and have significant work/life


    Finally, we move to the last output—decision making. As with perceptions, there are
    constraints and biases that will hinder effective decision making. The Perfection Error can
    lead to overconfidence, confirmation, and/or escalation of commitment biases. In each of
    these biases, the decision maker has an inflated impression of himself, causing him to overrate
    his own abilities (overconfidence), only affirm information that supports past decisions
    (confirmation), and increase commitment to a past decision even in the face of negative
    information (escalation of commitment). The anchoring bias, availability bias, randomness
    error bias, and hindsight bias are related to the Intelligence Error because in some form or
    another, they all have an inflated evaluation of the decision-makers ability to process and
    evaluate the information available to her.

    Moving beyond these heart-level constraints, decision-makers are constrained by information
    overload and limited time, which go hand in hand with one another. The rational decision-
    making model assumes that the decision maker has sufficient time to identify every
    component of a problem and all possible alternatives to solve the problem. It also assumes
    that there is enough time to evaluate each alternative. However, in the real, rough and tumble
    world, such is the rarely the case. The Bounded Rationality model acknowledges this reality,
    and is related to the notion that intuition must also play a key role in decision-making.


    Decision-makers are often forced to make gut-level decisions without having all the
    information they would prefer.

    Finally, organizational constraints play a key role. Performance evaluation criteria, reward
    systems, formal regulations, system imposed time constraints and historical precedents all put
    limitations on the options and frames of reference for the decision maker, for better or for


    Given all of these constraints, and the proclivities toward pride that can cloud our judgment,
    decision making can be a daunting process. But there are there some ways to deal with these
    constraints and biases.

    One way is to increase creativity. The Three Component Model suggests that creativity can be
    enhanced through a combination of expertise (meaning that organizations should continue to
    seek to educate, train, and retain their employees), creative thinking skills (didn’t see that one
    coming…) and intrinsic task motivation (meaning that employees who truly enjoy their work
    will be more apt to invest themselves fully in the decision making process). Being mentored by
    creative individuals is also suggested.

    Another means is to encourage “Big Picture” thinking, where decisions are made based not
    just on what is good for an individual, group or department, but rather in terms of what is good
    for the entire organization. This helps to overcome close-minded thinking. It might also allow
    for a more comprehensive definition of the problem that needs to be solved, since “big picture”
    thinking is most effective when members from different parts of the organization are
    represented in the decision making process. Therefore, mutual accountability and
    participative decision making come into play here.

    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the need for humility in making decisions. Decision
    makers can easily fall into one of two extremes: arrogant and brash decision making or fearful,
    timid, prolonged and ultimately, untimely decision making. In truth, both extremes are based
    on pride. The relationship between the first extreme and pride is rather self-explanatory.
    Regarding the second extreme, people who put too much stock in their own efforts and
    intelligence, rather than trusting that God will guide them and take care of them regardless of
    the outcome (if they will fully submit to Him) often find themselves crippled with fear and over
    analysis. They are obsessed with what will happen should they make a wrong decision, instead
    of waiting quietly on the Lord and making a decision with an open and humble heart.

    Back to Table of Contents


    LESSON 3: Motivating Employees

    Lesson 2 focused primarily upon our personal values, emotions, attitudes, etc. and what we as
    individuals can do to ensure that our emotions, moods and attitudes were in line with Biblical
    truth and effective job performance. Lesson 3 now puts the emphasis on how organizations
    can motivate individuals to be more productive on the job.


    Part 1 focuses on motivational theories that have been developed over the years to explain
    how employees are motivated. Part 2 will then focus on how these ideas and concepts can be
    applied to an organizational setting in practical ways. Two major themes underlie the major
    motivational theories that will be presented in this lesson. The first is that intrinsic motivation
    is the most effective means of motivating employees, because it speaks to who God made
    them to be. The second theme is that covenantal behavior can be used to achieve intrinsic


    Very little will be said about the early motivational theories, because for the most part, they
    are not substantiated by the research. However, it is interesting to note that on an intuitive
    level, all of them touch on the importance of intrinsic motivation. Two Factor theory argues
    that happiness and job satisfaction are not related to external factors. Maslow’s Hierarchy of
    Needs speaks of the ultimate motivator being self-actualization—which has nothing to do with
    external factors such as pay, recognition but rather finding true meaning and fulfillment.
    Theory X/Theory Y argued that in reality, most employees wanted to be empowered and were
    looking for opportunities to grow and develop through their work. Of course, Biblically, we
    know that this is not always true—not every employee wants to grow or can be trusted with
    more responsibility.

    McClleland’s Theory of Needs argued that employees are motivated by one of three needs:
    the need for power (nPow), achievement (nAch) or affiliation (nAff). A Biblical perspective on
    this theory is that living for eternity, which of course is all about intrinsic motivation, can
    achieve all three of these. Caring for others and showing them the love of God (nAff) is
    ultimately the best investment of one’s efforts, because the pay-off is one that is eternal
    (nAch). And God empowers those who seek to do His will (nPow). On an organizational level,
    covenantal behavior is also relevant here. Creating an atmosphere where your employees are
    cared for (nAff), are empowered (nPow) and can achieve objectives and are honored for them
    (nAch) are what covenant is all about.



    The contemporary theories of motivation also emphasize the importance of intrinsic
    motivation and covenantal behavior (with the exception of Reinforcement theory, which
    focuses solely on external motivators). Cognitive Evaluation theory posits that verbal
    rewards increase intrinsic motivation and that job satisfaction increases when work goals are
    done for intrinsic reasons.

    Goal Setting theory argues that goals set via participative decision making increases the
    likelihood that goals will be accepted. It furthermore assumes that employees are self-
    motivated and have taken ownership of their organization. It requires feedback from leaders
    (active dialogue).

    According to Self-Efficacy theory, employees can be motivated to accomplish tasks if they are
    affirmed, which increases their self-confidence. Furthermore, assigning challenging goals to
    employees can convey a sense of trust in them and respect for their abilities. As seen, intrinsic
    motivation—feeling self-confident and valued—plays a key role in motivation, and from a
    covenantal perspective, these things can be achieved through empowerment, mentoring, and
    affirmation (hesed).

    Equity theory shows the interplay of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. It argues that
    employees are motivated by equal treatment. Therefore, organizational justice is crucial. An
    organization that acts covenantally is more apt to achieve this justice because: 1) it is more
    open to sharing bad news with employees (active dialogue) which can help to remove
    employee fears about injustice, 2) it encourages big-picture thinking and teamwork to solve
    problems; and 3) is more open to allowing employees to have a say in pay and bonus structures
    (participatory decision making). All of these tactics can increase employee belief in the
    fairness of the organization.

    Expectancy theory, which is probably the one most substantiated by research, focuses on how
    employees are motivated by the extent to which they can accomplish a task and in so doing,
    the extent to which they will be rewarded. It also argues that ultimately, the reward meted out
    by the organization will only have value insofar as it relates to personal goals (intrinsic
    motivation). From a covenantal perspective, this theory should remind leaders of the value of
    affirming and rewarding employees and understanding the types of rewards that motivate
    employees (hesed, participatory decision making).


    Employee involvement is another word for the covenantal idea of participative decision-
    making and management. An important and related term to this is “sphere sovereignty”.
    Developed by Dutch covenantal theologian Abraham Kuyper, this idea asserts that people and


    institutions should be respected and empowered in their field or “sphere” of expertise and
    control. In an organization, those who are going to be influenced by a decision should ideally
    have a say in the decision-making process. This will not only help to motivate employees, but
    it will also likely ensure that leaders have better data from those who are “in the trenches” in
    making a given decision. Representative participation is also related to this notion, but in a
    more formal and procedural context.

    Quality Circles and Total Quality Management were some of the first perspectives that called
    for greater employee involvement. Quality circles are consist of meetings in which employees
    get together with management to discuss ways to improve organizational processes and
    procedures in order to enhance quality. Related to this, TQM emphasized training of
    employees in the notion of “quality of workmanship” and encouraged the use of quality circles
    as a means of increasing quality and productivity.

    It should be noted, however, that empowerment is not for everyone. Only those employees
    who are willing to take ownership of the organization, employ big picture thinking (which
    means they are willing to look past their own group or departmental concerns and in order to
    focus on what is good for the organization as whole) should be entrusted with empowerment.


    Payment programs are an example of the importance of extrinsic motivation. There are two
    general categories. The first is more of a goal—creating an equitable pay structure. This done
    to achieve internal equity—ensuring that everyone is fairly compensated within the
    organization—and to achieve external equity—paying employees a fair salary in terms of what
    they could be making elsewhere. The former is important to prevent internal strife and
    resentment. The latter is important to ensure that an organization does not lose its qualified
    employees to another company. The saying, “You get what you pay for,” is certainly relevant

    Variable-pay programs come in many forms. There is some research to suggest that they can
    serve as valuable motivators. For instance, profit-sharing has been found to contribute to
    increased profitability, and gainsharing has been found to increase productivity and positive
    employee attitudes. Piece-rate pay-for-performance plans have been found to increase
    productivity, but not for risk-averse employees.


    Flexible benefits are another type of external motivator, and allow each employee to
    individually tailor his benefit package. There are three types. Modular plans are
    predesigned for a specific employee type. Core-plus plans provide essential benefits plus a


    menu selection for non-essential benefits. Flexible spending plans allow employees to set
    aside money tax free for potential health needs.


    The theme running throughout this lesson is that intrinsic motivators are the most powerful
    form of motivation. It is therefore appropriate to talk about intrinsic rewards offered to
    employees to thank them for their efforts on behalf of the organization. This should not be
    viewed as an attempt to totally discount extrinsic motivators. In fact, some studies suggest
    that financial incentives have better short term impact, but non-financial incentives are more
    motivating in the long run.
    In that vein, recognizing and affirming employees is a key aspect of intrinsic rewards,
    however, such rewards cannot be arbitrary (such as using an intrinsic reward to honor
    “favorite” employees). Doing so can actually lead to resentment and serve as a powerful vision
    killer. It also needs to be specific and clear if it is going to have motivational power.


    Having provided some theoretical perspectives on motivation and providing some guidelines
    for motivating employees, it will be helpful to provide some concluding, Biblical thoughts on
    the subject.

    On an individual level, we need to remember to avoid “misplaced motivators” for doing the
    things we do. If we are seeking to be promoted over others or seeking to be recognized as
    ends unto themselves, than it is quite likely that we have the wrong motivations for doing the
    things we are doing. Likewise if we find that we “must” be in control (as if that were just a
    personality quirk rather than a fundamental statement about how we view God’s role in our
    lives) then yet again we are being wrongly motivated.

    What should motivate us? Living for eternity—seeing God work through us to change lives
    around us. There are only three things that will last for eternity—God, God’s Word, and
    people, so we should invest our time and effort into them. As Romans 2:6-8 (ESV) says: “He
    will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for
    glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking
    and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.”

    At the organizational level, leaders need to remember to emphasize intrinsic motivators.
    This is not to say that extrinsic motivators such as pay are not valuable, but rather that in and
    of themselves they will not have the same long-term motivational impact as intrinsic
    motivators. To accomplish this emphasis, leaders need to shift their duties to affirming,
    empowering, and rewarding employees. Leaders and managers who fail to appreciate the


    importance of the “people” side of their duties and instead focus primarily on just “getting
    things done” will struggle with intrinsically motivating employees.

    Finally, leaders need to create consensus on intrinsic, essential goals. This is done to create a
    sense of shared vision and to remind everyone in the organization that “we’re in this together.”
    This process can generate a lot of excitement and momentum within the organization.

    Back to Table of Contents


    LESSON 4: Group Behavior and Work Teams

    Welcome to Lesson 4: GROUP BEHAVIOR AND WORK TEAMS. This lesson marks a shift
    from a discussion about individual behavior and motivation to group behavior.


    Part 1 discusses the general properties and tendencies of groups, specifically with regard to
    roles, properties, and decision making. Part 2 will apply these concepts within an
    organization setting. In both cases, the value of covenantal principles will be emphasized.


    When groups are formed, they through some process of growth and development. Members
    establish relationships and get used to working with one another. They create processes,
    routines, and norms, and above all try to get things done. A popular way for conceptualizing
    this process is to describe it as Forming (the introductory phase)-Storming (the initial conflict
    among members as they get used to one another)-Norming (establishing normalcy and
    familiarity with one another and with how things get done)-Performing (gaining momentum
    and accomplishing goals and objectives)-Adjourning (disbanding the group, if it is a short-term
    one). Obviously, not every group goes through this process in the same way, but it does
    provide a helpful framework for understanding group development.

    From a covenantal perspective, mutual accountablity, and hesed can strengthen the group
    because both attributes are aimed at getting members to care for one another and be
    accountable to one another in order protect their own rights as well as creating a lasting
    relationship. These attributes can not only make the forming and storming stages less divisive
    and disjointed, they also set the stage for active dialogue, “big picture” thinking, and
    participatory decision making within the group during the norming and performing stages .


    There are several concepts associated with Group Properties. For instance, different
    members have different roles within the group. And every group has certain norms. The
    question is whether or not these norms are healthy ones. How does the group resolve
    conflicts? Are mutual accountability and empowerment key components of these norms? Is
    conformity exalted above productivity or active dialogue?


    Every group has a certain status within an organization. Does this status lead to a sense of
    elitism among group members, or in keeping with covenantal behavior, do group members see
    their group as part of the greater organizational whole and whose purpose is to help the
    organization accomplish its goals (“big picture” thinking)? If it is the former, than the group
    will likely have problems with groupthink.

    What is the size of the group? Smaller groups are better for getting things done (ideally no
    more than 7 people), but larger groups are ideal for solving problems because they maximize
    different perspectives as problems are defined and solutions are offered.

    Is there social loafing in the group? If so, limiting the size of the group will help because doing
    so requires every member to be more involved, and it enables mutual accountability to be
    enforced more easily. Setting common goals for the group and encouraging active dialogue
    can also help.

    How cohesive is the group? Generally speaking, cohesiveness encourages higher
    performance. As with the issue of social loafing, cohesiveness can be enhanced by shrinking
    the size of the group and setting common goals.


    Which is better—individual or group decision making?

    The benefits of group decision making is that it provides more complete information than an
    individual would because it provides greater diversity of views, which in turn leads to more
    accurate decisions. It also leads to increased acceptance of the decision, since consensus-
    building was used to come to the decision.

    The negatives is that it is more time consuming since obviously more people are involved in
    the process. There can also be greater pressure to conform (especially if group norms do not
    allow for healthy conflict resolution), which can stifle a true discussion of ideas. Related to this
    problem is the possibility for one person dominating the group. It is therefore important for
    groups to practice active dialogue in order to prevent this. On the other extreme, there can be
    ambiguous responsibility in the group process, which is why the concept of mutual
    accountability must be a part of the group decision-making process. In the end, it’s clear that
    individuals can make quicker decisions, but when a problem needs to be solved or information
    needs to be analyzed, the group decision-making process is ideal.

    One particularly effective method of group decision-making which dovetails nicely with the
    principle of mutual accountability is the nominal group technique. In this process, individuals
    meet as a group but generate ideas individually. Ideas are then presented one at a time, and
    each member takes a turn until all ideas have been presented. Then ideas are discussed for


    clarity and evaluation. Finally, members independently and silently rank each idea, and the
    idea with the highest score wins. This method has been found to be more effective than
    brainstorming or electronic meetings.

    • Work group
    • Work team

    Work groups interact merely to share information, make decisions, and complete tasks, but a
    work team creates synergy through coordinated effort. In this case, the sum is greater than
    the individual contribution of the parts. At this level, we begin to see covenant behavior and
    big picture thinking.


    • Problem-solving Teams
    • Self-managed Work Teams
    • Cross-functional Teams
    • Virtual teams

    Problem-solving: Teams are especially gifted at problem-solving because they allow for a
    multi-faceted approach to solving a problem.

    Self-managed: These teams, in essence, take on a supervisory role as they complete vital
    tasks. However, the success of these types of teams is mixed. On the one hand, there is in
    fact greater job satisfaction among members of self-managed teams, but there are also higher
    rates of absenteeism and turnover. Perhaps this lack of absenteeism is due to a lack of
    accountability because team members are accountable only to one another. To combat this,
    successful teams must be “covenantal” in their approach to their activity—they need covenant-
    level commitment to the process, they need to be humble and accountable to one another.
    They also need to be accountable to the greater goal of the organization—the team cannot
    just be a social club for the elite members therein! Success is based upon the norms of the
    team, the make-up of the team, the type of tasks, and the reward structure.

    Cross-functional: This type of team increases opportunities to exchange information, develop
    new ideas and solve problems, as well as increase communication and “big picture” thinking.


    In one sense, this is the goal of every “covenantal” organization—to increase this type of
    communication and interaction across the board. Getting to this level of communication and
    interaction takes a lot of work, even at the team level. It takes time to build trust and get
    everyone on the same page, and as will be discussed shortly, if the performance evaluation and
    reward structure, the organizational culture, and leadership behavior do not support this type
    of interaction, it will be especially difficult.

    Virtual teams: These types of teams are not able to duplicate the face-to-face connection of
    other teams. Perhaps they should not be relied upon, therefore, for solving problems and
    creating big-picture initiatives. They are probably better served for conveying information to
    the members and for the performance of more basic functions.


    • Adequate resources
    • Leadership and structure:
    • Climate of Trust
    • Performance Evaluation/Reward Systems

    Adequate resources: Organizations need to be willing to support teams with the necessary
    equipment and such that will be needed to do the job. Ultimately, this falls on the leadership

    Leadership and structure are especially important in “multi-team” systems. Leaders need to
    understand the importance of keeping all of the groups focused on big picture tasks and not
    just their own responsibilities. Also, for a team approach to really work, leaders need to truly
    delegate the necessary tasks to the team (empowerment), along with the authority needed to
    do those tasks. Leaders also need to provide the necessary resources to help the team
    accomplish those tasks, and above all, leaders need to see themselves as active facilitators in
    the team process—helping teams see the big picture, and how they relate to the efforts of
    other teams, and ensuring that teams don’t get into “turf wars” with other teams. This
    requires the leadership team to be covenantal in their approach to team efforts, and therefore,
    there must be a covenantal culture throughout the organization.

    Trust can be easily undermined when leaders don’t provide the necessary resources,
    information, or support for teams. Also, when leaders allow rampant conflict (back-biting,
    gossip, rivalries, etc.) to breed, trust will be hindered. Within the group, members need to be
    able to trust one another. If organizational leaders have created a climate where members can
    truly focus on the task of the group rather than having to look after their own security and


    standing in the organization, and if the group members themselves appreciate one another’s
    gifts and strengths, competition will be lessened and teamwork will increase. One way of
    decreasing competition is through reward systems and performance evaluation that
    encourage group behavior and accomplishment.

    Performance Evaluation/Reward Systems: Organizations need to hold team members
    individually accountable (to prevent social loafing) while at the same time measuring for joint
    success (to increase group cohesion). Therefore the evaluation criteria used to appraise team
    members performance needs to measure both individual contributions as well as group
    accomplishments. Group-based appraisals, profit-sharing, gainsharing, and small-group
    incentives should also be used in the reward process.

    Team Composition

    • Abilities of Members
    • Personality of Members
    • Allocation of Roles
    • Diversity of members
    • Size of teams: keep them at 9 or fewer members
    • Member preferences: not everyone wants to be in a team!

    Abilities include technical expertise, problem-solving and decision-making skills, and
    interpersonal skills. High ability teams should be saved for more difficult tasks and problems
    as they may become bored with mundane tasks and issues.

    The personality of members is also a key issue. For instance, high conscientiousness and
    openness to experience lead to better performance, and disagreeable team members can
    significantly hurt the team process. Proverbs talks a lot about back-biters, lazy, arrogant, and
    foolish people and how they disrupt good things and negatively influence others. These types
    are far from “covenantal” in their behavior, but probably every organization has people who
    are this way, as we’ve discussed in previous lectures. Research reveals that it might be better
    to keep all of the conscientious, “covenantal” people on the same team separate from low
    conscientious members to remove inequity and improve satisfaction.

    Allocation of Roles: Furthermore, members should be selected based upon their strengths
    and should be assigned tasks within the group accordingly. This increases motivation and
    satisfaction for the members, but again, it requires some forethought and proactivity on the
    part of the leaders.

    Greater diversity does not necessarily guarantee performance and can actually negatively
    affect performance of teams. Turnover can also be higher as well as conflict and power


    struggles. One study suggested that to really get things done, members in diverse groups
    should focus on the task right away to build cohesion based upon a shared sense of teamwork.

    Size: Remember from the previous lecture that groups and teams should be kept to a
    manageable size—9 or fewer is ideal. This allows for “covenantal bonding—members can truly
    get to know one another and develop relationships with one another in meaningful ways.
    Team members should be comfortable enough with one another where they can challenge one
    another for the purposes of increasing productivity.

    Member Preferences: Not everyone enjoys working in a group (introverts?), so keep that in
    mind. It’s better to get people in the group who want to be there. It should be stated,
    however, that just because someone does not function well in a group does not mean that they
    have the attitude issues discussed above. It just means that their talents and affinities lie
    elsewhere. Again, leadership will need to be able to identify these type of people and plan

    Work Design—think “covenantally”

    • Allow for freedom and autonomy.
    • Skill Variety
    • Task Identity
    • Task Significance

    For a group to truly be a team, leaders must empower them with the freedom and autonomy
    to do the job assigned to them. They must also be given the opportunity to use different skills
    and talents (skill variety), as this will motivate talented employees who feel like they have a lot
    to offer and are looking for the opportunity to feel challenged by their work.

    Task Identity: Likewise, if leaders allow a team to complete the entire, identifiable task or
    product, motivation will increase. This is related to Demming’s notion of “quality of
    workmanship” because it allows for motivated team members to get excited about producing
    quality workmanship. As Christians, we know that work can and should be an act of worship to
    God, and task identity allows for this type of worship to happen, even among people who,
    though not Christians per se, are still made in God’s image and intuitively understand the value
    of quality workmanship as end unto itself.

    Related to this is task significance—team members will be more motivated if the things they
    are accomplishing are important and have value. Leaders need to have enough to create tasks
    that are both valuable for the organization and meaningful to team members. When these
    factors are in play, member satisfaction and team effectiveness are increased.


    Team Processes

    • Common Plan and Purposes
    • Specific Goals
    • Team Efficacy
    • Mental Models
    • Conflict Levels
    • Social Loafing

    Common Plan and Purposes: Teams need to have a good plan, but once they have
    established that plan, they need to be able to adjust it as necessary (reflexivity). This requires
    covenant—mutual accountability and a willingness to reconsider and evaluate the plan. When
    making a covenant, members not only establish the terms and goals of the covenant; they also
    create a framework and process whereby the covenant can be reviewed and revised from time
    to time and as need be. Teams cannot be so focused on their positive identity that they are not
    willing to consider that they’re off track (group think).

    Specific Goals: Having goals is basically this is accountability. Nebulous values and goals will
    not lead to success!

    Team Efficacy: Teams need to have confidence in themselves. Hesed, mutual accountability,
    and mutual affirmation are helpful in this regard, but only in conjunction with accountability to
    the stated and clearly defined goals of the group. Otherwise the team will fall into groupthink
    and failure.

    Mental Models: teams need a successful, accurate, and humble “psychological map” of how
    work gets done and what to expect in the performance of tasks. This requires effective
    communication among members, and therefore mutual accountability plays a key role here.
    Team members all need to be on the same page with one another lest there be any surprises
    when one member approaches the task one way and another member another way. Such
    discontinuity cannot only hurt communication; it can also hurt productivity. Likewise, team
    members need to be in touch with the greater reality of the job and the environment in which
    they are operating. Even if the entire team is in agreement about expectations and standards,
    is their mental model unrealistic? It’s easy for individuals (remember “self-inflation”
    tendencies) and groups to assume the best and to assume that the work will be easier than it
    really is. Teams have to be diligent in truly researching what resources of time, money, etc.
    will be required to get the job done. They cannot have illusions of grandeur or ease in the
    process. In other words, teams need to be wary of their own collective laziness and pride.
    Professionalism is informed by humility and diligence. Professional teams have healthy and
    realistic mental models.


    Conflict Levels: Functional conflict increases productivity because it challenges flaws and blind
    spots in the “mental model” of the group and therefore any group think that might exist.
    However, functional conflict can be undermined when members, due to pride personalize
    disagreements. Relationship conflicts, therefore, are dysfunctional and take away from team
    unity and productivity. Part of a healthy “mental model” of any team is the acknowledgement
    that functional conflict should be an important part of the process to ensure that an accurate
    and realistic description of the problem and task is in place.

    Social Loafing: successful teams hold members accountable to both group goals and
    individual tasks needed to accomplish those goals. A mental model that allows a member to
    not do any individual work or focus ONLY on individual work is flawed. This should be
    communicated at the outset. Team members should realize that not only are they responsible
    for their piece of the puzzle; they are also responsible for the entire process, in order to make
    sure that the mental model is effective and to ensure that everything is getting done as it
    should. The idea of covenant once again is relevant here—especially in terms of hesed and
    mutual accountability. Also, the very basis of entering a covenant requires more than just a
    loose and vague commitment to the relationship; on the contrary, entering into a covenantal
    relationship requires steadfast and active commitment.


    • Hire team Players
    • Training
    • Rewarding

    Hiring Team Players: Organizations that do not understand the necessity of having a team
    mindset will not hire the right types of employees.

    Training: Organizations can provide training in this regard, but training in and of itself will only
    result in cynicism if leadership is not committed to empowerment and servant leadership. Lip
    service will not work in creating teamwork anymore than lip service would work in any type of
    relationship. Being a team player needs to be modeled by leadership in terms of being open to
    feedback, communicating at the “big picture” level with employees, and empowering
    employees who are affected by decisions to have a say in those decisions. If that context is not
    there, the ability to encourage teamwork will be limited.

    Rewarding: members should be rewarded for team-building activities—helping to resolve
    conflict, mastering new skills that the team needs, sharing information with teammates, etc.
    Of course, in an organization where various departments do not communicate well with one
    another and where leaders do not communicate well with the employees in the trenches, it will


    be hard to create a necessary reward structure to encourage team-building. On the other
    extreme, if group behavior is emphasized at the expense of the individual, a lack of morale may
    exist. Hard-working individuals need to be rewarded for their individual contributions.
    Remember that in a covenant, individuals are affirmed and cared for and they are tasked with
    affirming and caring for the other members in the relationship. This is the best way to create a
    true team.


    • Only if the work couldn’t be better done by one person
    • When the work goal is greater than individual goals
    • When members find that they are interdependent with other members

    Only if the work couldn’t be better done by one person. Usually problem-solving is better served
    by a team, whereas the completion of simple tasks should be left to the individual level.

    When the work creates a greater goal than just the combination of individual goals. This is true at
    the organizational level as well—every employee needs to see how their task fits into the big

    When members find that they are interdependent with other members in the completion of their
    separate tasks. In this situation, there should be communication among the members and
    greater interaction.

    Back to Table of Contents


    LESSON 5: Organizational Communication


    Formal Channels: “official” means of communication

    Informal Channels: interpersonal, unofficial, and often, the most meaningful

    Formal channels are the written policies, mission/vision statements, rules and regulations,
    memo’s, etc. that a company creates and expects from its employees. The informal channels
    can either work against or for the company and the formal channels. For instance, the
    “grapevine” often conveys a lot of information that the organization wouldn’t want conveyed.
    Depending upon how leaders treat their employees and are viewed in the organization, the
    grapevine can be good or bad. Rumors, gossip, and speculation are all communicated via
    informal channels. The stories of how leaders either affirm or kill the vision (“vision killers”)
    also get transmitted quickly through informal channels, especially through the grapevine.
    However, if leader s and other members of the organization are covenantal in their behavior,
    those same informal channels can be those which convey mutual affirmation and care, and
    which provide momentum for what the organization is trying to accomplish. Leaders need to
    be aware that informal communication is often more important than formal communication,
    because informal communication falls in the sphere of interpersonal relationships, which is
    where the rubber meets the road for organizational behavior.


    Downward Communication:

    o Leaders should explain WHY decisions are being made.
    o Leaders should seek feedback about decisions

    Upward Communication: gives feedback to managers and leaders about organizational

    Downward communication, like formal communication, can often be too rigid for effective
    communication. If leaders don’t provide a clear rationale for decisions, employees can feel
    confusion, fear, and resentment for policies and decisions which don’t make sense from their
    perspective. Ideally, not only should leaders communicate the rationale behind their decisions,
    they should also seek feedback about those decisions from employees before the decisions are
    made, which of course is part of upward communication. This goes back to the notion of


    “sphere sovereignty” in which all relevant employees who will be impacted by a decision
    should have feedback into the decision process. This is also part of “big picture” thinking.
    Leaders communicate the big picture constraints, goals, and objectives to relevant employees,
    and employees provide feedback “from the trenches”—so that those goals and objectives are
    contextualized in the realities of customer needs and the day-to-day routine of various

    Ideally, leaders should be actively seeking upward communication, but there are some
    practical tips for employees seeking to engage in upward communication. First of all,
    employees can reduce distractions when meeting with their superiors by meeting outside of
    the boss’s office, such as a conference room. Employees should speak in “headlines”—in other
    words—get to the point with your boss! Do not meander but rather serve your superior by
    reducing information overload and providing clear, compelling information for why what you
    have to share is relevant. Using an agenda is also helpful to help give your superior a clear map
    of where employees are headed when they are communicating with superiors.

    The bottom line is that employees need to be focused when trying to provide feedback to
    superiors. Ideas and concerns need to be linked into the “big picture” of the organization—any
    personal concerns which the employee has must be couched in the goals, constraints, and
    objectives the organization is facing. And again, this is part of the covenantal process. Though
    leaders should humble themselves and seek valuable feedback from employees, those same
    employees are obligated to “accept the terms of the covenant”, take ownership of the process,
    and think like leaders. Doing so will ensure that upward communication is far more relevant
    and much more likely to be received favorably by leadership.

    Lateral communication:

    o Communication across departments
    o Saves time and increases productivity
    o Avoids “me vs. them” mentality
    o Increases “big picture” thinking
    o Facilitated by ad hoc, cross-functional teams.

    In previous lessons, the case has been made that it is natural for humans to think in terms of
    “me vs. them”, or, “I’m smart and everyone else (who doesn’t agree with me and think like me)
    is an idiot.” Organizationally, this manifests itself in horizontal communication, when leaders
    accuse employees of being lazy and unmotivated, and employees accuse leaders of being inept
    and out of touch. In lateral communication, this same attitude is manifested as various
    departments and groups can engage in turf wars with one another. Members of competing
    groups chafe at the rules and regulations imposed by the other groups, considering them to be
    arbitrary and useless. Meanwhile members of the other departments presume that the other


    groups are clueless. What is really going on is that each department makes rules and
    regulations that maximize their own efficiency and effectiveness, without being aware of how
    those same rules and regulations affect other departments and individuals in the organization.

    This is where lateral communication is so helpful. As members from various groups and
    departments meet together to get things done, organizational awareness increases. In that
    context, it will be far more likely that members in one group will be more aware of the
    constraints, needs, and goals of other departments, and so on. This of course is related to “big
    picture” thinking. There are various facets of lateral communication, but one practical and
    specific way to increase this type of “big picture” thinking is to use ad hoc, cross-functional
    groups who meet to discuss areas where various departments and groups are having issues
    and where blind spots exist in big picture thinking.


    Oral Communication:

    o Still the most effective way to communicate
    o Passing message through a number of people can dilute the message.
    o Rumor mill and grapevine

    Written Communication:

    o Rules remove uncertainty
    o But excessive rules = less attention to those rules
    o Policies must be lived our relationally

    Covenantal Behavior to Increase Communication:

    o “Spirit” of the law, not just the letter
    o Leaders care for and empower employees
    o Leaders communicate big picture
    o Encourage lateral communication and teamwork

    Oral communication is still the best way to communicate information because it is immediate
    and because it allows for feedback and immediate clarification. However, it also can be
    inefficient. As a message is communicate through more and more people, it can get more and
    more diluted. To solve that problem, written communication is employed. Leaders create
    policies and procedures to remove uncertainty, but in so doing, they run the risk of excessive
    bureaucratization and a think rule book which no one reads. Fortunately, covenantal behavior
    can address this dilemma.


    Remember that a covenant relationship involves not just rules and regulations, but also the
    spirit undergirding those rules—mutual accountability and hesed. Indeed, the very notion of
    hesed implies a loving fulfillment of those rules and regulations. If leaders hire quality
    employees, and more importantly, if leaders act with integrity, care for and empower
    employees, and do a good job of communicating the “big picture” to employees, there will be
    less need to rely upon excessive written communication. This is so because employees will
    understand the spirit and rationale behind what the organization is trying to accomplish. By
    giving employees more responsibility and power (task identity, task significance, “quality of
    workmanship), employees will be more likely to do quality work and will not need external
    rules and regulations. Finally, as leaders encourage a spirit of team work and mutual
    affirmation/accountability across the organizations, there will be less resistance among groups
    and people will be more apt to work together to get things done. In summary, all of this
    covenantal behavior contributes to intrinsic motivation. When employees are motivated
    intrinsically, they need less external guidance and motivation.


    Formal Networks:

    o Chain, Wheel, and All channel
    o All have advantages and disadvantages
    o Covenantal behavior is more important


    o Grapevine
    o Rumor Mill
    o Rumors are reduced by effective communication.

    The formal network prototypes all have advantages and disadvantages in terms of effective
    communication and clear leadership. The essential point here is that covenantal behavior can
    accommodate a variety of network structures. It seems that horizontal communication is
    based served when it runs two-ways, regardless of the structure. And the richness of that two-
    way horizontal communication is aided by quality lateral communication.

    As mentioned earlier, the grapevine is a powerful conduit for informal communication, about
    75% of which is accurate. Similarly, the rumor mill also provides a powerful conduit for
    informal communication, and usually arises when important organizational issues arise that
    are ambiguous and cause employees anxiety. To reduce the low morale caused by the rumor


    mill, leaders should be quick to openly communicate potential bad news and all decisions that
    are being made which might negatively impact employees. Being open about difficult
    decisions and issues reduces the fear of the unknown. Furthermore, if leaders allow employees
    to have input and to share concerns, this further helps to reduce low morale and rumors. So
    covenantal behavior is very important during difficult times.

    Electronic Communication:

    o The faster the medium, the greater the ambiguity
    o Networking software, blogs can provide community and personal touch
    o Can be both formal and informal

    Knowledge Management and Customer Relationship Management software:

    o Preserves information
    o Aids the sharing of information
    o Requires covenantal behavior
    o Must be focused to avoid information overload

    Regarding the various mediums of electronic communication, the guiding principle is that the
    faster the medium the greater the potential for ambiguity, both with regards to information
    quality and emotional meaning. This should be taken into account when communicating via
    email, instant messaging, etc.

    Knowledge management (KM) technology is vital for preserving and encouraging
    organizational learning and “big picture” thinking, and as such can be a valuable aid for
    covenantal behavior. The key is that there must in fact be a willingness among members to
    share information—a practice which runs directly contrary to the “me vs. them” attitude
    discussed earlier. Therefore, similar to the strategies for encouraging group cohesiveness,
    leaders must create reward systems and performance evaluation criteria which encourage
    team work and the sharing information.

    The same is necessary for the use of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) technology.
    CRM technology collects data and information from employees in the trenches—sales and
    customer service representatives—and helps preserve best practices for attracting and serving
    customers. It also helps to identify customer concerns, product defects, and/or service issues.
    But again, for this technology to be helpful, there must be a covenantal culture, where
    employees understand the value of teamwork. For instance, sharing best practices for
    attracting new customers and serving existing customers helps everyone.

    Finally, KM and CRM technology work best when they help to reduce information overload.
    Only vital information must be stored and shared. If used properly, these technologies can


    give a company a competitive edge as it educates its employees and improves their


    • Rule of thumb: non-routine messages need “richer” channels.
    • Effective managers understand critical of non-routine messages.

    There are many channels which can be employed for organizational communication, but the
    general rule of thumb is that the more non-routine the message, the more rich the channel
    should be. Face-t0-face communication, for example, is the richest channel of
    communication. When bad news needs to be communicated, or difficult decisions need to be
    hashed out, leaders do well to interact more directly with employees. The same is true in the
    situation of lateral communication, when various departments need to work through issues of
    conflicting goals among themselves.

    Effective managers and leaders understand this important truth in part because they
    understand the concerns of employees during difficult times and also because they understand
    the important of “big picture” thinking and communication.

    Back to Table of Contents


    LESSON 6: Leadership

    Welcome to Lesson 6, which will focus on organizational leadership. We’ll begin with an
    overview of some of the historical trends in leadership development, and then focus on
    contemporary leadership perspectives. In so doing, we’ll find that all of the leadership trends
    continue to revolve around some core concepts that just happen to be paramount to a
    covenantal approach.


    • Leadership vs. Management
    • Are leaders born or made?
    • Leadership as influence

    Is leadership the same as management? To be sure, there is overlap between these two
    functions. But for the sake of clarity and discussion, leadership will be differentiated from
    management in that it is focused on creating vision, “big picture” thinking, and motivating and
    inspiring employees. Managing is more focused on achieving the outcomes established by the
    leadership team and in general, ensuring effectiveness and efficiency. Both practices are
    necessary for successful organizations. It can be furthermore argued that managers will be
    more effective if they can inspire and motivate their employees. Likewise, leaders may be
    visionary, but if their vision is out of touch with organizational realities and constraints, their
    vision will be of no value. So having a managerial perspective is helpful for leaders who want to
    be successful. As has been discussed in previous lessons, this is a big part of covenantal
    leadership—linking leadership ideas with the reality of organizational details, and linking
    employee tasks, concerns, insights, and challenges into the big picture of the organization. We
    will continue to focus on how covenantal behavior can help achieve that end.

    Much has been offered as an answer to the question of whether leaders are born or made. The
    popular consensus is that any person can be developed into a leader with proper training and
    encouraging. Reality and the truth of Scripture, however, suggest otherwise. Not everyone
    has the moral aptitude and the gifts necessary to lead overtly. Some people are gifted with
    more charismatic personality traits and communication skills. These should not be
    overlooked, for doing so undermines the fact that each human being is made in God’s image
    and reflects His glory in unique ways.

    However, if we describe leadership as the ability to influence, the case can be made that any
    human being willing to mature spiritually and emotionally into an individual willing to take
    ownership of the situation around him and care for others can be said to be a leader. In fact,


    organizations thrive when its members, regardless of their position within the organization,
    possess this type of leadership aptitude, and the covenantal approach is very much concerned
    with encouraging employees to take ownership of the company and care for others therein. As
    will be seen in this presentation, this is a type of “self-leadership” and in later discussions, we
    will talk about this type of leadership in terms of organizational culture and the success that it
    can breed.


    • Research validates that leaders possess certain traits.
    • Big 5: Extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience
    • Emotional Intelligence and Assertiveness
    • Predicts leadership emergence, not effectiveness

    Operating from the framework that leaders are in fact born, the research does in fact support
    the notion that certain traits are associated with successful leadership. In fact, the “Big 5”
    approach is closely related to this. Extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to
    experience are associated with organizational members who are more willing and able to
    assume formal and informal leadership roles than their peers.

    On a related note, emotional intelligence (EI) is seen as a valuable leadership trait, though the
    research is still undeveloped on this front. At the very least, it serves a counter-point to the
    research that suggests that individuals who are too assertive in their leadership style actually
    undermine their own leadership over others. To be sure, assertiveness is a valuable trait in a
    leader, but not when it occurs at the expense of caring for employees, being open to feedback
    from employees, and being willing to veer from a chosen path based upon that feedback. It
    seems reasonable that a person with a high level of EI would be more in tune with follower
    needs, concerns, and insights, would be more willing to respond accordingly, and at very least,
    would be more adept at framing ideas and messages in the context of those needs, concerns,
    and insights. Furthermore, from a covenantal perspective, a wise leader understands the
    importance of meaningful relationships with employees (hesed) and of accountability to
    employees. A deficiency in these attributes can seriously undermine leadership efforts and

    Having said all of that, it should be noted that these traits are more likely to predict and explain
    leadership emergence, not effectiveness. This should not surprise those of us informed by a
    Christian worldview—we understand that leadership is comprised of a moral component which
    transcends a mere possession of traits. But if these traits cannot predict leadership success,


    what can? It is hoped that a covenantal approach will help fill in the gap here and provide a
    much more well-rounded perspective on leadership.


    Ohio State Studies/University of Michigan Studies:

    o Initiating structure & Consideration (OSU) as opposed to…
    o Employee-oriented and production-oriented

    Blake & Mouton’s Managerial Grid:

    o Concern for People
    o Concern for Production
    o Covenantal Behavior allows for both.

    Similar to the traits approach to leadership, behavioral theories of leadership emphasize that
    leadership consists of specific behaviors. The earliest efforts in this regard are the Ohio State
    University and University of Michigan studies. They offered a similar framework—the OSU
    studies focused on initiating structures and consideration. Initiating structures relate to the
    extent to which leaders provide guidance and clarity on tasks and goals and responsibilities for
    employees. Consideration pertains to the extent to which leaders relationally engage
    employees as defined by mutual trust, respect, and regard for employee feelings and insight.
    This latter category sounds a lot like EI. Likewise, the UM studies focused task-oriented
    behaviors and employee-oriented behaviors. Building on these studies, Blake and Mouton
    went on to develop the Managerial Grid, whereby a leaders can be classified by the extent to
    which they balance concern for people with concern for production.

    The importance of these early studies is that they acknowledge the reality that leaders have
    dual roles—“getting the job done” and caring for people. It will be argued here that ultimately,
    these two functions must coexist, and that in reality, caring for people actually helps with
    taking care of business. As the study of leadership and organizational behavior has evolved,
    there has been an increasing trend on the belief that by accessing the insights, skills, and
    talents of employees not only motivates employees to become more involved in the
    organizational process, it also maximizes productivity. Leaders who are too task-oriented will
    undermine good will employees and also run the risk of isolating themselves from valuable
    employee feedback. On the other hand, leaders who are push-overs and overly-friendly to
    employees will not only undermine the task component of the process, but they will destroy
    the morale of the good employees because problem employees will not be kept in line. A
    covenantal approach embraces this understanding—leaders are to care for employees, but
    likewise, employees are to care for leaders and for the organization.



    Fiedler’s Model

    o Determine task or relationship-orientation
    o Evaluate leader-member relations, task structure, and position power
    o Match leaders to situations
    o Task-oriented best for high and low-control situations
    o Relationship-oriented best for moderate control situations

    Another perspective on leadership is offered by various contingency theories. The basic
    thrust of these theories is that leaders need to be able to adapt their behavior and leadership
    style based upon employee characteristics and situational factors. We can see in this emphasis
    an influences from the earlier behavioral perspective on leadership. For instance, Fiedler
    proposed a model whereby leaders are classified in terms of the whether they were more task-
    oriented or relationship-oriented. Then, the situation in which the leader operated was to be
    evaluated in terms of leader-member relations, task structure, and position power. Based
    upon that analysis, leaders were to be matched with particular situations, the rationale being
    that certain types of leaders were more effective in certain types of situations. In summary,
    Fielder argued that task-oriented leaders were most effective in high and low-control
    situations. In other words, where tasks were clearly structured or were in need of structure,
    where employee relationships were either solid or not important, and where leaders either
    possessed a high or small degree of position power, task-oriented leaders would thrive. In
    high-control situations, leaders would not have to focus much on employee relations, and in
    low-control situations, where employee relationships were minimal, a task-oriented leader
    would be unfazed and could just focus on getting tasks done. On the other hand, in situations
    with moderate control—i.e., ambiguity in all three components—relationship-oriented leaders
    would be more effective, perhaps because they would be better able to work with followers to
    handle the ambiguity and negotiate power.

    Hersey and Blanchard Situational Theory and Path-Goal Theory

    o Both focus on employee abilities and mindset
    o Path-Goal more focused: Directive, participative, achievement oriented, and supportive

    Decision Theory: Vroom and Yetton’s Leader-Participation Model: participative decision-
    making determined by various factors


    Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Theory approach and the Path Goal Theory both focus
    on employee abilities and mindset and espouse different leadership approaches based upon
    those two factors. The Path-Goal approach is more focused and it advocates the use of
    directive, participative, achievement-oriented, and supportive leadership styles based upon
    whether or not employees had the abilities to be more involved in the process and the desire to
    do so.

    Neither of these theories are exact, but they do acknowledge the importance of being
    connected with employees. Furthermore, it can be argued that the various leadership
    approaches advocated by the Path-Goal theory overlap and can be used in conjunction with
    one another. For instance, to some extent, directive leadership is needed with every type of
    employee. The more motivated employees just need less of that type of leadership approach.
    Likewise, if employees know that leaders care for them (supportive leadership), they may be
    more open to directive leadership. Participative leadership allows employees to have a say in
    the creation of goals and other organizational processes—something that might appeal to
    achievement-oriented employees. Finally, related to participative leadership, Vroom and
    Yetton’s Leader-Participation model emphasizes the importance of participative decision-
    making, but only based upon the presence of certain factors.

    Covenant and Contingency Theories:

    o The need for flexibility
    o The importance employee engagement

    The value of contingency theories from a covenantal perspective is that they all emphasize the
    importance of leaders being flexible and being in tune with their employees’ needs, abilities,
    and insights. How does this relate to the idea of covenant? First of all, a covenantal
    relationship is flexible—rather than creating a rigid structure and unchangeable processes,
    rules, and regulations, it instead creates a framework of mutually-affirming relationships and
    duties that protect each member. Provided that the rights of individuals are not undermined in
    any way, a covenant can be revisited to better accomplish agreed-upon goals and to enhance

    Secondly, individuals who covenant with one another must be meaningfully engaged with one
    another in meaningful ways. A covenant is more than just a contractual agreement in which
    certain duties must be performed; rather those duties exist to preserve the more foundational
    and important relationships among all members. So though a leader may have some
    positional authority, he/she also is in a relationship with members and must be accountable to
    them. In both regards, contingency theories of leadership coincide with covenantal behavior.



    • Time pressures cause leaders to select “favorite” employees
    • The in-group and out-group and self-fulfilling prophecy
    • How can leaders develop all employees?

    On a less idealistic note, Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory emphasizes the fact that
    leaders, due to time constraints and other factors, generally choose and focus upon an “in-
    group” and an “out-group.” Members in the “in-group” get more time with the leader and
    more development and mentoring than those in the “out-group”. What often happens in such
    a situation is that members of the in-group de facto succeed, courtesy of self-fulfilling

    Is this fair? Perhaps not, but it is often realistic. Practically speaking, do leaders have the
    ability to develop and interact meaningfully with every group of employees? Probably not.
    Likewise, is every employee as equally motivated as every other employee? Again, the answer
    is no.
    On the other hand, covenantal leadership argues that true success is achieved when
    employees throughout the organization have taken ownership of organizational processes and
    care for one another. If leaders can lead covenantally, perhaps they will be more successful in
    creating this type of culture and paradigm.


    Charismatic Leadership

    o Motivates by inspirational vision and personal charisma
    o Positive force in troubled times
    o Can lead to a lack of accountability and abuse of power
    o Level-5 leaders—humble and ambitious


    Later leadership approaches have focused on inspiring employees. For instance, charismatic
    leadership focuses on how leaders can motivate employees via inspirational vision and
    personal charisma. These types of leaders are especially effective as a positive force during
    troubled times—people like Winston Churchill and Lee Iacocca come to mind. However, a
    negative of these types of leaders, in becoming “larger than life”, is that they can also become
    immune to accountability and therefore can become prone to abusing power.

    On the other hand, Level-5 leaders, as defined by Jim Collins in his work From Good to Great,
    are leaders who, like charismatic leaders, are ambitious. However, their ambition is driven by
    humility—they want their employees and their company to achieve lasting and meaningful
    success. Collins further relates that the impact of charismatic leaders upon organizations is not
    lasting—though they might achieve short-term success for the company, once they leave the
    company, success leaves with them. Collins reasons that this is perhaps due to the fact that
    charismatic leaders are too focused on themselves as opposed to focusing on developing
    employees and creating a self-sustaining organization. Using these classifications of both, it is
    clear that “Level-5” leaders are more in tune with a covenantal approach to leadership.

    Transformational Leadership

    o Encourages employees to move beyond self-interest to accomplish exciting,
    transcendent goals

    o Builds upon transactional leadership (providing direction and clarity)
    o Is it different from charismatic leadership?
    o What do processes and structure look like?

    Related to charismatic leadership is the transformational leadership approach.
    Transformational leaders encourage followers to look beyond their own self-interest and
    focus on transcendent, meaningful goals of the organization. This becomes a motivation for
    the entire company, such that the very act of achieving those goals and expanding one’s
    horizons becomes an end unto itself. It is important to note that transformational leadership is
    not opposed to transactional leadership; rather it builds upon it. Every leader needs to
    provide direction and clarity to employees; having established that foundation,
    transformational leaders go beyond that to motivate employees at a deeper level.

    There is some question as to whether or not transformational leadership is substantially
    different from charismatic leadership. Rather than trying to resolve that debate, it would be
    helpful to point out that neither leadership approaches focus on the process and structure
    that would be helpful for a healthy, self-sustaining organization. This is in large part because
    they are, after all, about leadership practices, not about organizational cultures or structures.
    But this could in fact be the greatest defect in the inspirational leadership genre—a lack of
    focus on anything beyond leadership behavior. As such, these approaches provide us with an


    incomplete picture of organizational success. On the other hand, a covenantal approach
    provides not only a description of leadership behavior, but also a context for that behavior, as
    defined by organizational processes, structure, culture, and employee interactions.


    • Authentic leaders
    • Ethics and “Vision Killers”
    • Socialized charismatic leadership

    Though less inspirational, authentic leadership focuses on motivating followers through
    sincerity and integrity. Given how leaders can destroy an organization’s culture and rapport
    with employees through “vision killers” a leader who acts with integrity and ethical
    soundness is vital for organizational success. This relates to the covenantal notion of “mutual
    accountability” and is therefore quite important. Another view of authentic leadership is to
    consider it “socialized charismatic leadership”—charismatic leadership that is wrapped in with
    acknowledgement and concern for others.


    Three levels of trust:

    o Deterrence-based
    o Knowledge-based
    o Identification-based (related to covenant)

    Basic Principles:

    o Mistrust destroys groups and productivity
    o Trust can be regained only in limited situations
    o Trust begets trust
    o Know thyself…

    No matter how inspirational leaders are, they still must be trusted by their followers. This is
    why “vision killers” can be so detrimental to effective leadership. Trust can be classified in
    terms of levels. Deterrence-based trust is motivated by the threat of punishment if threat is
    broken. This is more in keeping with a contractual basis for doing business. If the stipulations


    of the contract are broken, then there will be legal ramifications. One violation of trust ends
    the relationship. Knowledge-based trust is based upon knowledge of the other person’s
    behavior. If there is a proven-track record of good behavior, trust is enhanced. This type of
    trust obviously has more longevity than the lower level of deterrence-based trust. Finally,
    identification-based trust could be said to be trust based on a deeper, heart level of interaction,
    and in fact, is quite covenantal. Members understand and appreciate one another’s motives
    and are in deep agreement about shared goals. Such a deep level of trust is necessary in
    forming a covenant relationship.

    Some guiding principles exist with regards to building trust. First of all, mistrust (vision killers)
    destroys groups and productivity. Once trust is lost, it can be regained, but only in limited
    situations. On the other hand, trust begets trust. Just as vision killers seriously undermine
    relationships and belief in leaders, acts of trust have a powerful motivational impact upon
    followers. Finally, trust is ultimately based upon personal integrity, and an individual’s
    willingness to look at himself and has a healthy evaluation of his own inconsistencies and
    potential for missteps. A leader who is aware of that will not get trapped in his own cult of
    personality and will be furthermore open to accountability for others. This is covenantal
    behavior and is a solid foundation for building trust.


    • Psychological rather than tangible
    • Demming and employee development

    Mentoring has been an emerging trend in the study of leadership. It assumes that leaders will
    help followers grow personally and professionally, and in a way that helps the organization
    succeed. However, research reveals that the impact of mentoring is more psychological than
    tangible. Is this entirely a negative? When employees feel cared for psychologically, might
    they not be more effective and more motivated? As will be seen in future lessons, ideas like
    the “learning organization” are based upon the notion that leaders should help employees
    develop and grow professionally in a way that helps the company develop and remain viable.
    Furthemore, in his exposition on Total Quality Management, Demming argues that some of
    the most important aspects of employee development cannot be measured and yet
    nevertheless are necessary and valuable.



    • Empowerment: “Super leaders” help followers lead themselves.
    • Self-sustaining leadership and culture
    • Basis for covenantal behavior

    Related to the notion of mentoring is self-leadership, where “super leaders” help followers
    lead themselves. This is similar to the notion of self-government and is necessary for self-
    sustaining leadership within an organization’s culture. If a culture is not self-sustaining in a
    positive way, the company will not endure.

    Furthermore, in keeping with the covenant idea, the only type of person who can enter into a
    covenantal relationship is one who is a “self-leader”—one who models integrity, is willing to
    take ownership, and is willing to be accountable to others. The notion of self-leadership is
    therefore quite important for successful organizations.


    Attribution Theory:

    o Reveals bias in leadership perception
    o Perceived leadership in extreme organizational performance

    Neutralizers: negate leadership influence

    Substitutes for Leadership:

    o Individual, job, and organizational characteristics
    o Self-sustaining leadership and culture

    Finally, there are some challenges to the general field of leadership. Attribution theory
    argues that there is a bias in leadership perception—people de facto characterize others who
    are outgoing, gregarious, intelligent and aggressive as leaders, whether or not they are
    actually effective as leaders. Furthermore, there is a tendency to either blame leadership for
    impressive failure or credit leaders for impressive success, whereas perhaps there are any
    number of other factors and causes for either failure or success.

    There are also leadership neutralizers and substitutes. Neutralizers are those factors that
    totally undermine any type of leadership. Employees who are indifferent to rewards, for


    instance, would be an example of a leadership neutralizer. On the other hand, there are
    individual, job, and organizational factors that can substitute for leadership. This is a good
    thing, because it contributes to self-sustaining leadership and culture. If employees take
    ownership of the process, for example, that means that they are self-motivated and will be less
    reliant on formal leadership. In a healthy culture that encourages self-leadership, when one
    leader leaves, it is more likely that the company can survive even with that absence. In a final
    pitch for covenantal behavior, it can be said that these types of leadership substitutes are a key
    part of a covenantal paradigm for organizations.

    Back to Table of Contents


    LESSON 7: Politics, Negotiation and Conflict


    • Pride and Fear
    • Impression management
    • Servant leadership

    The processes of politics, negotiation, and conflict resolution all revolve around how we use
    power. The motivations for using power are very telling for how we involve ourselves in each
    of these areas. If for instance we are motivated by pride, we will be unwilling to admit when
    we are wrong (or we will always provide justifications and explanations for any mistake we
    make, so as to take as little responsibility for our errors as possible), unwilling to work with
    others and share resources for the good of the entire organization, and unwilling to
    acknowledge that there are others in the organization who have rights. We will also be less
    willing to recognize and affirm the abilities that others have, for fear that doing so might lessen
    our own standing in the organization.

    Motivation by fear is closely related to pride; in fact, they are often two sides of the same coin.
    When we do not trust that God is in control and loves us more than we love ourselves, we also
    believe that it is solely dependent upon our own efforts to advance our careers and succeed in
    life. In such a scenario, it can be easy to feel that we always have to prove that we are better
    than those around us for fear that will be left behind if we do not. This can lead to a spirit of
    unhealthy competition and politics within an organization, where no one is really willing to
    trust others, or care for and work alongside others.

    Another attribute that stems from the dual-motivations of fear and pride is “impression
    management” where we try to make others think the best of us and we try to hide our
    weaknesses and shortcomings. Often, we do this in dishonest ways, or we are so bound by
    fear of what others might be thinking of us that we resort to constant manipulation of others
    and flattery in order to ensure that we are in good standing with others. Besides being
    spiritually and emotionally exhausting, this type of behavior prevents us from living the life
    that God has called us to live and truly being who God has called us to be. On an
    organizational level, such behavior is also very harmful to the success of the company. If
    individuals in the organization are motivated by pride, fear, and impression management, will
    there ever be an honest and critical appraisal of where the company is falling short and where
    it needs to change? This does not happen in an organization where everyone is trying so hard
    to make themselves look good that they blame-shift and run from accountability!


    On the other hand, consider what happens when we start with the truth of the Gospel. First of
    all, we realize that everyone has issues and shortcomings, but that is not really the main point.
    The One who knows us the most—the one who sees ALL of our sins and shortcomings—sent
    His Son to die for us and save us from our sins. If the one from whom we cannot hide or
    deceive with impression management loves us unconditionally through Christ, then why
    should we feel the need to try to deceive others? Furthermore, if the Father was willing to
    send His own Son to die for us, can we not also trust His other promises to us—that He will
    provide for our every need, and, if we let Him, use us for His eternal purposes? Believing these
    truths requires faith (Hebrews 11:6). It takes faith to not always feel the pressure to engage in
    deceitful political maneuvering and impression management to protect and advance our
    careers. It takes faith to believe that even if we did not get the promotion we had hoped for, or
    the “inside” connection with our boss, that God is still in charge and that His plan for us will not
    be compromised. It takes faith to believe that God still has His best for us even when our lives
    and our careers do not unfold as we would have hoped. In the end, it really comes down to one
    question: do we trust our own perception of reality and our own sense of how things should
    turn out for us, or do we trust the God who sent His own Son to die for us will arrange our
    careers and our very lives to be exactly what He wants them to be, and that as such, they will
    be better than anything we could have managed on our own?

    If we put our hope in Christ, then we are freed from the bondage of trying to engineer every
    outcome of our lives. Sure, we will work hard and try to advance our careers, but we will not
    idolize success on the job and we will not despise those who are recognized for their
    contributions even if our own contributions are passed over. Remember that our High Priest,
    Jesus Christ promises to constantly put in a good word on our behalf to the One that really
    matters, so we can rest easy even if our human bosses and supervisors do not appreciate all
    that we do, and we can freely and truly rejoice with those who are honored rather than feeling
    bitterness and envy. When we trust God, we can appreciate that He has gifted those around us
    with certain abilities and skill-sets, and we can praise Him for that. And we can work to see
    others excel and shine as well. Because we are no longer running from our own shortcomings
    but instead are willing to deal with them, we create an organizational culture where people are
    not afraid to admit mistakes because they know that they are cared for. This in turn creates
    true synergy where people are helping each other to help the organization succeed. Rather
    than blame-shifting and attacking one another, people start actually focusing on the problem
    and “big picture” solutions so that the organization can succeed. In the end, we have a
    covenantal organization where servant leadership is the norm instead of political
    maneuvering, impression management, and flattery. It is a wonderful place to be! 



    Sources of Dependency:

    o Importance
    o Scarcity
    o Nonsbutitutability/irreplaceable vs. a self-sustaining culture
    o Mutual Accountability

    Two things are relevant in this list of aspects that can bring power to someone. First of all, it’s
    been mentioned earlier that one off-shoot of an organization that behaves covenantally is that
    it has a self-sustaining culture, meaning that the culture is bigger than anyone person. In a
    discussion about power, being irreplaceable is indeed a good way to gain power, but ideally,
    an organization should be looking for people who share power—who invest in others, and help
    them develop for the betterment of the organization. A personality-driven culture is one that
    is inherently flawed.

    Secondly, in a covenantal organization there is an acknowledgement that everyone needs
    everyone else—members are mutually accountable to one another for the sake of team work,
    mutual care and affirmation, and for identifying blind spots in the organization (part of “big
    picture” thinking). So again, whereas many conceptions of power speak of the power that an
    individual may hold over others, the Biblical/covenantal approach speaks of power being used
    not to be served but to serve; not to build up one’s kingdom but to build and invest into others.


    Formal Power:

    o Coercive
    o Reward
    o Legitimate


    o Expert
    o Referent

    Personal power sources are more effective.

    Power vs. authority


    Motivations for use of power is the foundation for our discussion, and now that this foundation
    has been laid, we can discuss related issues. For instance, there are two general sources of
    power: formal and personal. Formal power derives from the authority established by an
    organization or institution. Coercive power is the ability to punish, reward power is the ability
    to reward, and legitimate power is the power that comes with one’s position in the company.
    Obviously, these three are closely related to one another.

    Complimenting these sources are the personal sources of power: expert and referent. Expert
    power is that power which comes from one’s knowledge and expertise. People respect those
    who know what they are doing and are knowledgeable. Referent power is the ability to
    influence others and the ability to be likable. As mentioned in the previous section, this power
    can be used dishonestly and manipulatively, or it can be based upon genuine motivations of
    care and respect for others. This power also includes the ability to inspire others, which can
    also be good or bad depending upon the motivations.

    Not surprisingly, research reveals that the personal sources of power are the most effective for
    persuading and influencing others. And it could be argued that referent power is the most
    important power base because it makes the other sources of power all the more effective. If
    people know that leaders care about them and truly want them to succeed, they will be more
    open to correction that might need to administered from time to time, and they will know that
    the leaders are impartial and fair in dealing with them (coercive power). People will want to
    work harder for good leaders, such that their motivations will not be just about monetary
    incentives (reward power). In fact, remember from previous discussions about how the most
    important motivators are intrinsic ones.

    Finally, it should be noted that in a Biblical worldview, power is different from authority.
    Power speaks to raw ability, but authority speaks to permission. As Romans 13:1-4 discusses,
    all authority is from God. Ultimately, we do not obey our leaders because of who they are
    specifically, but because God has ordained authority for various reasons and to disregard that
    authority is to rebel from God’s law. And leaders themselves can disregard that when they use
    their power outside of the confines of God’s authority.



    What works?

    o Rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, and consultation are more effective.
    o Pressure tends to be backfire.
    o Soft tactics more effective than hard tactics

    How do these tactics work?

    o Rational persuasion works across all levels.
    o Inspirational appeals is good for downward influence.
    o Personal appeals and coalitions are more effective with lateral influence.

    In the previous section, the case was made that referent power is the most effective, because it
    based upon relationship and caring for one another. Research collected on power tactics
    affirms that same basic principle. Rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, and
    consultation are the most effective tactics because they are more likely to be based upon
    respect for others.

    Leaders can certainly use pressure to motivate employees, but that can lead to a culture of
    fear rather than one of mutual respect. One challenge that leaders and managers face is trying
    to encourage compliance of employees. Biblical principles and research alike confirm that if at
    all possible, the means listed above, all of which could be considered “soft tactics” are more
    effective than “hard tactics” such as pressure. Covenant building requires respect and care for
    each individual in the relationship, and leaders need to understand the importance of that in
    the context of organizational behavior.

    Furthermore, rational persuasion, which is the tactic least likely to be based upon
    manipulation or deceitfulness, works across all levels of an organization in upward, downward,
    and lateral communication. The use of inspirational appeals by leaders can be an effective
    way of motivating employees, especially if the appeal does not insult their intelligence, and if
    leaders act in a way that affirm the ideals they are promoting instead of undermining them
    (vision killers). Hypocrisy and inconsistency on the part of leaders leads to employee cynicism
    and decreased motivation. Regarding lateral communication, the use of personal appeals and
    coalitions are helpful for getting things done. As discussed in previous lectures, many
    companies fail to see the value in coalition-building, or even seeking to get members from
    different departments into the same room so that common problems can be solved from a
    multi-faceted perspective (big picture thinking).



    The true boundaries are in the heart!

    These days, sexual harassment is hot issue and millions of dollars are spent on educating
    employees on how to avoid it. But Christ informs us that the real issue is not in words spoken
    or actions taken, but in the thoughts and motives of the heart. Learning to walk in integrity at
    the heart level will keep us safe from going anywhere near any gray areas!


    Functional and dysfunctional conflict

    Types of conflict:

    o Relationship
    o Task
    o Process

    Conflict and covenant

    In power struggles, conflict results. Those researching in the field of organizational behavior
    used to believe that conflict was damaging to organizational processes, but today there is a
    growing acknowledgement that not all conflict is dysfunctional. The interactionist view
    argues that functional conflict can be used to create more effective solutions to problems,
    build consensus and generate momentum for getting things done.

    There are three types of conflict. Research reveals that relationship conflict is almost always
    dysfunctional. However, many married couples, friends, and family members know that even
    relationship conflict can lead to strengthened relationships if handled correctly. However, the
    concern of the research spoken of here is when organizational members allow personality
    conflicts to get in the way of getting things done. Part of the reason this happens so easily is
    the “me vs. them” attitude mentioned in previous lectures.

    Covenantal behavior is aimed at creating a healthy context for working through conflict. It
    accomplishes this by affirming the value and importance of each individual in the relationship,
    and requires that each individual care for and be accountable every other member of the


    covenant. If mutual care and accountability are the foundation for relationships, then any
    conflict that arises about the functions and goals of work (task conflict) or how the work is
    done (process conflict), can actually be quite beneficial because when members interact on
    disagreements, they can often come to a better understanding of the problem and therefore
    come up with more effective solutions.

    The next several sections will provide a description of conflict resolution processes.


    Stage 1: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility

    o Communication
    o Structure
    o Personal Variables

    Stage 2—Cognition and Personalization

    o Perceived
    o Felt

    Stage 3—Intentions:

    o Competing
    o Collaborating
    o Compromising
    o Avoiding
    o Accommodating

    Stage 4—Behavior (overt conflict)

    o Peace-faking
    o Peace-breaking
    o Peace-making

    Stage 5—Outcomes:

    o Increased Group Performance
    o Decreased Group Performance

    Stage 1 of the conflict process details the potential areas within an organization where
    conflicts could arise. Communication breakdowns and deficiencies in organizational structures


    and processes can put people from different departments at odds with one another. Often,
    leaders do not communicate well with followers, and departments do not communicate well
    among themselves. Likewise, policies, procedures and structures are all created from a
    narrow-minded perspective—they benefit one department or the leadership team, but they do
    not benefit everyone impacted by such decisions. In both cases, conflicts can easily arise. This
    is where “big picture” thinking and communication can be so helpful. With participative
    decision-making, all relevant members in an organization can speak to these structural and
    communication gaps. The final area where conflicts can arise is in the category of personal
    variables. People get on one another’s nerves because of personality differences; they rub one
    another the wrong way. Hopefully, this is where all the personality tests you have been taking
    will really help you better understand your co-workers!

    Stage 2 describes how people respond to these issues. When the issues become strong
    enough, people become angry, fearful, and emotional. Hence, the conflict moves from one
    that is perceived to one that is felt.

    In step 3, as the conflict escalates, the various members involved in the conflict choose their
    response. Avoiding and competing are perhaps the most destructive because they both run
    the risk of destroying communication and engendering further animosity. Even in avoiding
    this is true, because though the members are not verbal in their disdain for the other members,
    there can still be a quiet resentment which will hinder teamwork and communication down the
    road. Accommodating can be a good opportunity to serve the other members, but it can also
    allow for the real root of the problem to continue to fester. Likewise, compromising is
    sometimes necessary, but ideally, collaborating occurs, because it allows for a win-win
    solution. The best way to encourage collaboration is with “big picture” thinking and

    In Stage 4 the members carry out their intentions in one way or another. In his book, The
    Peacemaker, Ken Sande discusses the options for conflict behavior from a Biblical behavior.
    Peace-faking occurs when we harbor resentment toward others but do not really try to
    constructively resolve the conflict. We grumble against the other person, complain about him
    behind his back, but we pretend that everything is OK when we interact with that person.
    Besides being dishonest, this type of passivity can be very destructive, and is an indication that
    we really do not care enough about the other person to resolve the conflict in an open manner.
    The other extreme is just as objectionable—peace-breaking—where we scream, yell, insult,
    and otherwise do what we can to overtly harm the other person in some way. Often peace-
    faking leads to peace-breaking, as pent-up anger and animosity finally explodes into a full-
    blown conflict.
    The Biblical ideal is peace-making, where we humble ourselves and look first and foremost to
    determine how are heart attitude is. As Christ said, “get the log out of your own eye.” True
    peace-makers realize that feelings of anger and resentment come from a self-righteous heart
    that does not take seriously what Christ has done for it on the cross. Humility, on the other
    hand, allows us to look at what we might have done to contribute to the conflict. If this type of


    humility is not practiced, conflict resolution will not be achieved because neither side will ever
    be willing to consider that maybe they have done something wrong.

    As it pertains to stage 5, how we handle the conflict will either lead to increased or decreased
    group performance. Peace-faking and peace-breaking lead to decreased performance, as
    unresolved conflict usually causes other people in the group to take sides and harbor
    resentment toward the other side. Gossip, in-fighting, rivalry all occur in either case. With
    peace-making, the people involved in the conflict avoid gossiping about the situation and only
    interact with the other people that can solve the conflict. They do not try to malign the person
    with whom they disagree by gossiping to others and they are aware of the very real possibility
    that they only see their side of the conflict and therefore want to walk in absolute integrity in
    making sure that both sides are heard and addressed. This is how conflict resolution can lead
    to greater organizational performance as it encourages “big picture” thinking at the expense of
    “me vs. them” attitudes.


    Distributive Bargaining:

    o Zero-sum/fixed pie
    o Make the first offer!
    o Reveal deadlines
    o Covenantal behavior

    Integrative Bargaining

    o Win-win
    o Collaboration, not compromise
    o Tips

    Related to conflict resolution is the official process of negotiating. There are two types of
    bargaining available in the negotiation process. The first is distributive bargaining, where
    there is generally a winner or a loser. The best case scenario with such bargaining is
    compromise, where both parties concede some of their desires in order to get the items they
    really want. Distributive bargaining is based upon a “zer0-sum/fixed pie” scenario, where
    resources and options are limited. If such a scenario is really the case, it need not mean that
    the parties are acting hatefully or manipulatively, but such situations can certainly lead to such
    behaviors. In the case of zero-sum bargaining, it is based to make the first offer, as that will
    frame the terms of the negotiation and provide an anchor in the final resolution that is closer
    to your terms. It is also helpful to reveal any deadlines that you are under, as such research
    helps to motivate the other side to come to an agreement. Ideally, in the covenantal process,


    both parties think in terms of what is good for the organization, not just for them. But a “me
    vs. them” attitude will not allow for such covenantal thinking.

    In integrative bargaining, on the other hand, both parties try to achieve a “win-win” solution.
    Collaboration, not compromise is the means of doing so. Compromise can actually stymie
    such efforts. With collaboration, both parties listen to what the other side really wants, and
    seeks an understanding of their true motives. It could be that what they really want can be
    achieved in more than way, thereby allowing for greater flexibility and greater options
    available for viable solutions. It is clear then that integrative bargaining is based upon “big
    picture thinking.” As such, there are some tips that might encourage integrative bargaining:

    1) Bargain in teams to generate more ideas and more options
    2) Include more issues in the process—do not just focus on one issue at a time. The more

    issues available for negotiation, the more likely it is for there to be flexibility in allowing
    for both sides to focus on what they really want.

    3) Ask questions of the other side to truly understand what they want.

    Back to Table of Contents


    LESSON 8: Structure and Culture


    • Bureaucratic Model
    • Human Relations
    • Human Resources
    • Systems Theory

    Organizational structure and culture has been viewed in four basic lenses the last 50 years or
    so. The first one is the Bureaucratic model which described organizational behavior in terms
    of functions, chain of command, and efficiency. This view prescribed that to maximize
    efficiency and effectiveness, companies should use job specialization.

    The Human Relations model came next, and it began with the acknowledgement that there
    might be a human component to organizational behavior and something that leaders should
    take into account. This lead to the Human Resources approach, which argues that by treating
    employees with respect and allowing them to have a high degree of empowerment and
    creativity in their job duties, that efficiency and effectiveness will be maximized. Leadership
    theories like transformational leadership and servant leadership are couched within this

    Another perspective—systems theory—is not offered so much as a contrast to the Human
    Resources approach, but rather as an alternative view. Systems theory views every
    organization as a composition of sub-systems within sub-systems. Indeed, the organization
    itself is a subsystem within the system of its community and economy. The point to this
    approach is that leaders should be aware of how a company’s environment impacts it and how
    employees within various departments—the various subsystems interact with one another to
    learn, develop, and react to the environment. Ultimately, it is hoped that with systems theory,
    a company will learn to not only react to the environment, but also be proactive in anticipating
    environmental developments.



    • Specialization and SOP’s
    • “Quality of Workmanship” & Total Quality Management
    • Covenant

    As mentioned in the previous section, job specialization was a key means for American
    businesses in the post-WW II era to maximize efficiency. Along with job specialization comes
    standard operating procedures (SOP’s) which are put in place to reduce defects in products
    and deficiencies in customer service quality. This emphasis on control has certainly yielded
    benefits, but as the rest of the world caught up with American businesses, increasing
    competition has shown that more is necessary to maximize the competitive edge. This is
    especially true given what most of us likely know about job specialization—routine and
    repetitive job functions can seriously undermine employee morale.

    When Demming introduced his notion of Total Quality Management, his ideas were highly
    regarded by Japanese businesses—it was only after Japanese businesses proved to be staunch
    competitors that American companies began to take his ideas more seriously. One of the main
    attributes that Demming advocated stands in contrast to the notion of job specialization to
    some degree. Demming argued that to really achieve success in an organization, leaders and
    manages should allow employees to enjoy “quality of workmanship”. In other words,
    employees are not just robots on an assembly line performing minimal tasks but rather they
    play a key role in developing whole products and services and have the privilege of seeing their
    efforts form into something tangible—something done with excellence. This, Demming
    argued, would actually enhance productivity. In many regards, Demming’s ideas have been
    verified today as companies seek to give employees greater responsibilities. Furthermore, the
    rigid chain of command that was necessary in earlier times is less necessary today due to the
    incredible developments in information technology. Likewise, this notion of “quality of
    workmanship” does not remove SOP’s, but rather prevents SOP’s from being reductionistic. It
    acknowledges that some components of quality cannot be quantified and reduced to a multi-
    step plan. However, if a company trains an employee in big picture thinking—thereby giving
    them an understanding of what quality looks like—and empowers leader with greater control
    over their work, leaders will find that not only will employees follow the basics of the SOP’s,
    they will exceed that and produce even greater quality.

    Covenantal behavior affirms this view of “quality of workmanship” because it affirms the
    individual members that are involved in the covenant. It also acknowledges that duties
    performed in the covenant are more than just duties—they are based upon relationships and
    an attempt to aspire to a greater, shared meaning. Allowing for “quality of workmanship”
    allows employees to have more meaning in their work, and to have greater say in how the
    company behaves. Assuming that the employees are properly motivated and trained, such


    behaviors, along with empowerment, participatory decision-making, and “big picture”
    thinking, should all be encouraged.


    • Rapid access to information has changed the structure
    • Emphasis on wider spans of control
    • Decentralization allows for greater employee decision-making
    • The popularity of self-managed and cross-functional teams

    Related to this concept of specialization is control. The degree of control that management
    has certainly affects structure. How much control do employees have versus management?
    Several factors have played into the argument that employees should have more control. First
    of all, as mentioned earlier, rapid access to information has changed the structural
    requirements—organizations can be flatter and more decentralized now that information is
    more readily available to employees.

    With better flow of information comes the ability to widen the span of control—more
    employees under less managers which decreases both departmental rigidity and the cost of
    management (since there are less managers), and increases interaction among employees as
    well as employee autonomy. With this decentralization comes more opportunity for
    employee decision-making. This is ideal especially in large companies, where employees are
    more in touch with customer needs as well as environmental constraints/opportunities than
    management. Giving them greater decision-making ability allows the company to be more
    reflexive and allows for better quality of service and products (“quality workmanship”).

    Furthermore, self-managed and cross-functional teams are growing in popularity among
    companies. Self-managed teams, as mentioned previously, allow for greater autonomy and
    more rapid decision-making on the part of employees. Cross-functional teams encourage “big
    picture” thinking and help to break down the barriers among departments, along with the “me
    vs. them” attitude that can come with rigid departmentalization.



    • Deparmentalization
    • Cross-Functionalism
    • The Boundaryless Organization

    Beyond this more general, philosophical view of how to structure an organization, there are
    practical issues in play. Companies structure themselves according to the following categories.
    First, they can departmentalize by function. For example, it would have a separate
    department for each function of the business process—accounting, finance, marketing, etc.
    Or, the company could departmentalize itself according to product, so that each product a
    company sells has is its own entity with its own decision-making. Departmentalization by
    geography is another, related way of structuring the company. Finally, a company can
    structure itself in terms of its various types of customers.

    However, as mentioned earlier, what is becoming increasingly clear for many companies in
    today’s ultra-competitive environment is the need to have cross-functional units in their
    companies, in order to increase “big picture” thinking. Practically speaking, this could come in
    the form of using “matrix” structures, using cross-functional teams (whether ad hoc or
    permanent), or becoming a “boundaryless” organization.

    This latter option is certainly the most ambitious one and it involves the use of self-managed
    teams, limitless spans of control in conjunction with the removal of vertical boundaries, cross-
    hiearchical teams, participative decision-making, and 360 degree performance evaluation
    (which goes nicely with the idea of mutual accountability).


    • Structure and culture
    • Culture as shared meaning and interaction
    • Dominant culture
    • Subcultures
    • Strong culture and rules

    Structure and culture closely align. If leaders want a covenantal culture, then they need to
    structure the organization accordingly. Also, a company’s culture can go a long way to
    addressing structural deficiencies in terms of covenantal behavior as will be seen shortly.

    Ultimately, culture is about shared meaning and interaction. Leaders can say they want a
    particular culture, and can make official statements to that effect, but until they have buy-in


    from employees, such efforts will be limited at best. Leaders may set the tone with regards to
    creating a culture, but how employees respond to such efforts is also part of what the
    organization’s culture becomes. If leaders are thinking covenantally, they can work to create
    an atmosphere of teamwork and community.

    Every organization has a dominant culture which pervades how people interact with one
    another and accomplish tasks. Ideally, in a covenantal organization, this dominant culture is
    based upon mutual affirmation and accountability, hesed, participative decision-making, and
    empowerment. Beneath this dominant culture is the potential for subcultures that might exist
    in various departments or groups. A dysfunctional culture can exist when these subcultures
    run counter to dominant culture in a subversive manner, undermining positive attributes.
    Leaders need to be aware of this, and can combat it via servant leadership and the
    encouragement of big picture thinking and empowerment. But if the dominant culture is a
    negative one, employees at lower levels can encourage covenantal behavior through
    subcultures by taking ownership and caring for one another. Sometimes, in discouraging
    situations where the dominant culture is lacking, this can be a positive force for change in an

    As mentioned above, a strong, healthy culture can supplement a successful organizational
    culture and can do much to encourage productivity. Covenantal behavior encourages self-
    sustainability, where people take ownership of organizational goals and processes and truly
    care for one another. When this happens, companies will find a natural momentum for
    achieving productivity and excellence.

    This is far superior to using rules and other authority maneuvers to encourage productivity
    for two reasons. First, using external motivators (rules, regulations, punishments, etc.) can
    only provide short-term and limited force, as discussed in the lecture on motivation. Secondly,
    as discussed in the unit on organizational communication, rules and regulations can become so
    numerous in a dysfunctional culture that ultimately, they become at best stifling and at worst
    disregarded. Leaders do well to remember this and to focus on building a covenantal culture,
    ensuring that intrinsic motivation of employees is the driving force for productivity.



    • Integrity of leaders
    • Build on employee strengths
    • Reward more than punish
    • Emphasize vitality, growth and learning (Iearning organization)

    There are several ways that leaders can create a positive, covenantal culture. First and
    foremost is through integrity. Leaders need to back up their lofty pronouncements about
    teamwork and vision by their own actions. Many employees can tell stories of when leaders,
    through poor communication and conflict resolution skills, disregard of employees’ feelings
    and insights, and poor management have totally undermined any stated organizational vision
    or corporate purpose. These negative behaviors are called “vision killers” and when these
    vision killers are in play, the organization’s dominant culture will suffer.

    Secondly, leaders should build on employee strengths. Covenantal building requires a sense
    of hesed, teamwork and mutual accountability. Learning to access and draw on employees
    strengths through empowerment, participative decision-making, and the practice of “quality
    workmanship” are great ways to do so.

    Leaders should also focus more on rewarding rather than punishing. Doing so acknowledges
    employee contributions, which shows employees that leaders care and actually have a clue
    about the employees’ impact on the organization. It further speaks to the need to provide
    intrinsic motivators for employees—most people want to know that they are valued members
    of a team and have skills they can offer to help the team accomplish goals. The use of rewards,
    even if they are not always intrinsic ones (in fact, intrinsic rewards are good in combination
    with extrinsic ones so that employees know that leaders are not just trying to be cheap), can
    help encourage that understanding.

    Finally, leaders can encourage vitality, growth, and learning. In fact, this goes a long way to
    encouraging a covenantal organization. First, it recognizes the value of each employee and
    focuses on the human desire to grow and excel. This is a type of intrinsic motivation that can
    keep employees focused on excellence. When leaders than focus this learning on
    organizational goals and help employees see how their skills and talents will fit in with the
    goals and objectives, “big picture” thinking will be enhanced. As an aside, these ideas in a
    formal sense are embodied in Senge’s concept of the learning organization.



    • Spirituality in the Workplace (SIW) and Postmodernism
    • Not about advancing a particular religion
    • Christianity and SIW
    • Covenant and SIW
    • Insincerity and SIW

    A related component to a “covenantal culture” is that of Spirituality in the Workplace (SIW),
    wherein leaders encourage employees to find inner meaning through their work (quality of
    workmanship), and includes a sense of shared meaning with others (which is what a covenantal
    culture is all about), and mutual care and accountability. In today’s Postmodern culture,
    people are looking for a more spiritual approach to life, and this idea seems to fit in with this

    However, spirituality in the workplace is not about advancing a particular religion in the
    workplace. There will be problems if that is the case (some even legal), and as Christians
    know, true religion and faith in God cannot be coerced. If however the notion of spirituality in
    the workplace is more associated with the notion that people working together to achieve
    excellence is a good goal, and that people should find fulfillment and a sense of community
    from work, then these criticisms are lessened.

    In fact, there are significant differences between a proclamation of Christianity and SIW. First
    of all, it should be noted that there are many Christian business leaders who have effectively
    and respectfully shared their faith with their employees and customers. This is a good thing,
    but the point here is to note that SIW is not directly focused on Christianity per se. In fact, as
    Christians, we know that true spirituality is linked to a personal relationship with God through
    Jesus Christ. We know not to substitute relationships with others for the most important
    relationship we can have with Christ, nor do we force this on others.

    Having said that, there is overlap between the two ideas. We affirm our faith in Christ as we
    love our coworkers, encourage them, and support them, and all of this can occur within the
    context of a “spiritual” workplace. Furthermore, the notion of spirituality in the workplace is
    very much related to the Biblical idea of covenant insofar as we are called to live covenantally
    with one another and recognize that our actions and decisions affect those around us. We do
    not live in a vacuum. Biblically, the most important thing we can do is care for others as an act
    of worship and devotion to God. We can’t forget that—there’s a sense of community, mutual
    care, and teamwork.


    On a final note, it should be pointed out that an organization’s insincere attempts at caring for
    employees can undermine spirituality in the workplace. This goes back to the idea of integrity
    and “vision-killers”.

    Back to Table of Contents


    LESSON 9: Human Resource Policies


    HR Functions:

    • Recruitment and Selection
    • Training
    • Performance Evaluation
    • Labor Relations
    • Managing a Diverse workforce

    Linking Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivators

    Human Resource policies are vital to an organization’s success. They involve not only the
    effective recruitment and selection of employees, but also training and effective
    performance evaluations. There is also the issue of labor relations as well as managing a
    diverse work force.

    In previous lectures, we’ve discussed the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic
    motivation. In the end, leaders who motivate their employees intrinsically are more
    successfully, and we’ve discussed how covenantal behavior can allow leaders to more
    effectively motivate and empower employees. However, intrinsic motivation that is not
    supported by extrinsic factors such as fair pay and just performance evaluation procedures can
    come off as insincere, therefore serving as “vision killers” and demotivators. As will be
    discussed in this lecture, a solid human resource strategy can ensure that the extrinsic factors fuel
    intrinsic motivators.


    • Covenant and the Hiring Process
    • Impression Management and Proverbs
    • Wisdom, Humility and Professionalism

    Part of hiring of a successful hiring process is finding not only people who are qualified for the
    job, but also those who are committed to the values, culture, and goals of an organization.
    Remember that part of the covenantal process is ensuring that every member understands


    the vision, terms, and stipulations of the covenant. One cannot enter into a covenantal
    relationship without understanding the notions of hesed, mutual accountability, and mutual
    care. Likewise, part of the hiring process is to ensure that the individuals who are hired
    understand what they are getting into and what it will take to succeed in an organization.

    The challenge of doing so is that people are on their best behavior when during the interview
    process. Impression management is in full effect and everyone is saying the right things to
    impress others. Biblically, there are some general principles that can be used to ensure that
    impression management does not confuse the interview process. In fact, the book of Proverbs
    has much to say about certain types of people as determined by their behaviors, attitudes, and
    words. For instance, people who flatter are to be avoided. The book of Proverbs is chalk-full of
    warnings about those who flatter others—they are cast as manipulative and deceitful. These
    are the type of people who will flatter the boss and come off as loyal employees but who will
    attack, undermine, and destroy anyone else who might get in their way. Likewise, those who
    are full of arrogance, self-promotion, and “big talk” are marked as prideful, un-teachable, and
    dishonest. They will say anything they need to say to get the job, and generally the more hype
    surrounding their words, the less truth can be found in them.

    • Proverbs 6:12-15 (ESV): “A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked
    speech, 13 winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, 14 with
    perverted heart devises evil, continually sowing discord; 15 therefore calamity will
    come upon him suddenly; in a moment he will be broken beyond healing.”

    • Proverbs 26:28: “A lying tongue hates its victims, and a flattering mouth works ruin.”

    • Proverbs 29:5: “A man who flatters his neighbor spreads a net for his feet.”

    Furthermore, an arrogant person will be less likely to work with others and listen to feedback
    from superiors, co-workers, and subordinates. This cannot be overstated—Proverbs is clear
    that a foolish, scornful person rejects wisdom from others and moves on with poor decision-
    making that will only bring them—and the compnay they work for!—to ruin. If you ever find
    that you are unwilling to receive correction from others, be warned.

    • Proverbs 9:8: “Do not reprove a scoffer, or he will hate you; reprove a wise man, and he
    will love you.”

    • Proverbs 29:1: “He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck, will suddenly be broken

    beyond healing.”

    Proverbs also warns about the sluggard, who will not work hard and only seeks his own
    comfort and ease. An organization, therefore needs to avoid big talkers who are either
    arrogant and manipulative in their ambition or lazy and selfish in their desire to collect a
    paycheck and seek only what is best for them.


    • Proverbs 10:26: “Like vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to

    those who send him.”

    • Proverbs 26:16: “The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who can answer

    In the Biblical worldview, there is a strong link between humility, wisdom, and professionalism.
    A wise person fears the Lord and realizes that no human has all the answers or even most of
    the answers. Ideally, the selection process should bring out the people who are humble,
    teachable and realistic in their understanding of job complexities. They are confident in their
    abilities, but are too wise and humble to offer vague and hyped expectations of the job they
    can do. These type of people, because they have a realistic understanding of the job and
    because they are humble and therefore willing to work with others, will likely be more
    successful in their efforts in the position for which you are hiring. They respect others and are
    willing to work hard. Their wisdom and humility, therefore, undergird their professionalism. In
    contrast, the fool makes bold promises he cannot keep. Likewise, only a fool would presume
    to look down on others and disparage those who might disagree with him.

    • Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise
    wisdom and instruction.”

    • Proverbs 12:15: “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to


    • Proverbs 25:12: “Like a gold ring or an ornament of gold is a wise reprover to a listening

    • Proverbs 27:12: “Be wise, my son, and make my heart glad, that I may answer him who

    reproaches me.”


    • Written tests (job-fit, organization-fit)
    • Performance-simulation tests
    • Behavioral Structured Interviews
    • Contingent Selection
    • Internal Recruitment vs. External Recruitment


    Thankfully, there are some strategies available to prevent a bad hiring decision caused by
    impression management. First of all, many organizations require some sort of written test to
    assess a potential hire’s aptitude, attitude, and abilities for the job. Tests such as these can be
    good not only for determining job fit, but also organizational fit as well—tests that measure
    “organizational citizenship behavior” for example.

    Performance simulation tests, as the name indicates, require potential employees to
    demonstrate their abilities in a work simulation. Likewise, behavioral structured interviews,
    in which potential hires have to answer questions about how they would respond in a particular
    scenario, are a good way to get past big talk and subterfuge. Finally, many organizations offer
    contingent selection such as drug tests, as a means of ensuring that they have made an
    appropriate hiring decision.



    • Planning, Workflow Analysis, Job Analysis and Participative Decision Making
    • Internal Recruitment, Training, and Delegation
    • Defining the Training Problem/Need and Return on Investment Analysis
    • Big Picture Thinking, Participative Decision Making, and Quality of Workmanship

    A big part of any training program is of course knowing what the company needs to make
    money. Therefore, one important part of HR planning is workflow analysis, which determines
    what kinds of jobs are necessary to allow each value chain to perform efficiently and effectively
    in the future. Likewise, job analysis focuses on the tasks and responsibilities necessary to
    complete each job in the company. And again, participative decision-making which involves
    employee insights could really enhance both processes.

    Another aspect of HR policy is the training and development of employees, and it goes hand
    in hand (or at least it should) with internal recruitment processes. Internal recruitment should
    be emphasized along with external recruitment. Employees working for an organization want
    to know that their hard work and faithfulness to the company will be rewarded. They want to
    know that they are valued and are in an environment where they can continue to develop their
    skills and grow. These are key aspects of intrinsic motivation. Companies who show their
    loyalty to their own employees via internal recruitment will likely see greater morale and more
    of a covenantal culture in the workplace. Remember too that a covenantal organization has a
    self-sustaining culture. Leadership is not dependent upon one person but upon many, all who
    have taken ownership of the process and the organization. Companies need to encourage this
    type of behavior by developing a strong process of internal recruitment.

    One way this can be done is through effective delegation. One study revealed that most
    delegation involves the assignment of menial tasks to subordinates, and nothing more.
    Effective delegation, on the other hand, involves empowering employees to handle major
    aspects of the organization’s processes and decision-making. It goes hand in hand with
    participate-decision-making, because it gives employees greater responsibility and ownership
    over their tasks and allows them to participate in the formulation of policies and strategies.
    Through mentoring and training, delegation can be a major means of encouraging “big
    picture” thinking. Besides, turnover, recruitment, and training are all costly processes. The
    more you can promote from within, the better!

    A key aspect of any organizational training is its effectiveness—will it really help the company?
    There are two important steps to ensuring success of any training program. The first step is to
    ensure that the problem which the training is supposed to address is accurately defined. If the
    problem is not properly defined, then the company will be throwing away money. Secondly, it
    is helpful to conduct a Return-on-Investments (ROI) analysis. An ROI analysis links training


    initiatives into the bottom line and asks if the training will actually increase profit in the
    compnay. ROI analysis therefore, measures training success in ways that go beyond whether
    or not the employees felt it was helpful. At the very least, it involves measuring to see if the
    training lead to specific behaviors that have been shown to be conducive to serving customers,
    increasing sales, improving productivity, etc. Ideally, it also can evaluate impact as measured
    in dollar amount. Obviously, this is type of analysis can be quite difficult to achieve, but it is a
    helpful goal and along with accurately defining the training problem/need, provides focus and
    accountability in deciding upon training initiatives.

    Ideally, any training initiative should include “big picture” thinking. Employees should see how
    the successful performance of the tasks and duties for which they are being trained are
    relevant to helping the company profit and succeed. Part of such a perspective is allowing
    employees, where relevant, to have a say in the type of training that they are receiving. It
    could be that employees “in the trenches” have a greater understanding of what they actually
    need to perform their duties. If training is assigned from the top down without any degree of
    participative decision-making, not only might the company spend money on a flawed training
    initiative, but it also runs the risk of engendering frustration and low morale among employees
    who just wish that the leadership team would listen to their insights every once in awhile!
    Again, this type of participate decision-making MUST go hand in hand with “big picture”
    thinking—employees need to understand organizational goals, constraints, and how their
    duties fit in all of that before they can truly be qualified to participate in decision-making of any
    sort. Related to this is the “quality of workmanship” goal. Training initiatives need to speak
    to the greater goal of helping employees produce quality work.


    • What should be evaluated: outcomes, behaviors or traits?
    • Who should conduct the evaluation: supervisors, peers, subordinates, or self-

    • How should evaluations be conducted?
    • Covenant: “Loving Accountability” as the foundation

    There are three essential questions that are associated with performance evaluations. The first
    is the question of what should be evaluated. Ideally, employees should be evaluated on the
    outcomes they create through their work efforts. This is the most objective means of
    evaluation and provides clear expectations for employees in terms of what to expect.
    Behaviors are the second most effective means and sometimes is the only option because
    outcomes cannot always be attributed to a specific employee. Evaluating for traits, such as a


    good attitude, work ethic, etc. is the least effective means because it can be the most
    subjective and also the most difficult to link with specific results on the job.

    The second question focuses on who should conduct the evaluation. Because many
    organizations today consist of self-managed teams, telecommuting employees, etc., an
    immediate supervisor might not be the most qualified person to conduct the evaluation.
    Many employees are therefore being asked to evaluate themselves as part of the process. This
    has significant problems—much as it would be if students were allowed to grade their own
    work! However, if it is used as a means of beginning a dialogue with the employee and
    involving them in the process, it has value. In other cases, peers and subordinates as well as
    supervisors are also being brought into the evaluation process to more accurately assess
    employees. This is known as 360 Degree performance evaluations. Of course, this has its own
    problems—employees might inflate their evaluations of one another in the spirit of quid pro
    quo, or “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”.

    The final question is perhaps the most important—how should evaluations be conducted?
    There are many ways to conduct evaluations: written reports, critical incidents, graphic rating
    scales, behaviorally anchored rating scales, and forced comparisons are some of the more
    popular means. In and of themselves, they have little value if there is not good communication
    at the foundation. Employees need to know exactly what is required of them, and should
    never be caught off guard when walking into a performance appraisal by hearing about
    problem issues from their supervisor for the first time! Also, supervisors need to do provide
    clear and constructive feedback on an employee’s actions and outcomes. Ideally, this should
    come before the official performance evaluation, and should be part of a relationship based
    upon mutual care and respect. As supervisors come across issues with employees, they should
    be quick to address those issues, to keep the problems from growing and affecting other
    employees within the team or department. Furthermore, such efforts should again be based
    upon mutual care and respect. Finally, interventions should be well-documented not only to
    protect the company from lawsuits, but also to show the employee that actual efforts are
    being made not only to hold them accountable but also to work with them and help develop
    into more successful employees.

    In the end, an effective performance evaluation needs to be based upon the covenantal
    attribute of “loving accountability”. Supervisors who are not providing detailed, specific, and
    clear feedback to employees as part of an on-going dialogue with them or who furthermore
    are not open to accountability themselves will severely undermine team morale and
    productivity. When that happens, the performance evaluation process can serve as a vision

    Likewise, employees who are un-teachable and unwilling to embrace “big picture” thinking are
    part of the problem and need to be dealt with. Supervisors need to clearly define expectations
    at the outset—employees should know what is expected of them when they are hired. There
    should be no ambiguity there. And we know that part of entering into a covenantal
    relationship is a clear definition of the terms, so such communication is vital for ensuring


    justice. So when an employee does not live up to those expectations, and shows a continued
    lack of desire to make improvements, supervisors must deal with that the employee lest other
    members of the team get the message that poor behavior and lack of teamwork are the norm.


    • Unions in Today’s Global Context
    • HR Policies, “Vision Killers” and the Labor Relations Rift
    • Integrative Bargaining and Covenantal Behavior

    In today’s global context, where American companies are having to compete with businesses
    throughout the world, and are growing into huge, multi-national corporations, a legitimate
    question arises about the future of unions. Companies with unions usually find that their cost
    of doing business is higher than those without unions. Good or bad, such is often the case, and
    in an era of increasing global competition, the presence of unions could be a serious challenge
    for companies doing their best to stay afloat.

    But the very notion of a union was predicated on the fact that in the past and still today,
    management has sought to exploit and abuse employees in various ways, all of which are
    examples of “vision killers”. As mentioned earlier, how a company treats its employees is often
    manifested in its HR policies and procedures. A company with policies and procedures that
    are perceived as unfair by employees can be more prone to facing unionization if it did not
    already have a union, and a labor relations rift, with all of the unpleasantries that are
    associated with such a rift.

    When such a rift exists, and negotiations are in order, wise companies embrace integrative
    bargaining in order to provide win-win solutions as much as possible. Certainly this is in
    keeping with covenantal principles. But more to the point, if companies truly care for their
    employees, empower them, share decision-making with them, and are accountable to them,
    they might find that many of the issues underlying the drive for unionization and labor
    relations rifts will be largely removed.



    • Community and Work-life Balance
    • Workaholism in the Biblical Context
    • Postmodernism, Multiculturalism and Covenantal Behavior

    In today’s society, especially in America and other Western nations, we are seeing the
    evaporation of many of the community structures that were in place in years gone by.
    Neighborhood involvement, church-life, and other community interactions have lessened
    significantly in conjunction with what seems to be an increase in individualism. Many people
    today do not know their neighbors very well or really much of what is going on in their own
    community. Combined with this is an increase in work involvement, such that many
    employees find their lives consumed with work, even to the point that they take work home
    with them. Recently, there has been a growing trend to improve this work-life balance, and
    companies have developed HR policies to allow for employees to make more time for family
    life and community involvement. Policies such as flex-time, telecommuting, vouchers for child
    care, etc., are some of the many examples of companies trying to better care for their
    employees in this regard.

    Biblically, we know that as humans made in God’s image, we are called to be more than just
    worker drones. We are supposed to be actively involved in our families and in our churches.
    We are supposed to know and care for our neighbors as much as possible, and to be the salt
    and light in our communities. Ultimately, it is up to us to not become workaholics. We have to
    trust that ultimately God is the one who provides our needs, so as we make the commitment
    to truly care for our families, raise our children, and bless our neighbors, God will take care of
    us. But wise companies also understand that they have a part to play in not creating a culture
    of workaholism. Ultimately, encouraging employees to be well-balanced in their lives is good
    for the company, because happy employees who know they are cared for by their company are
    intrinsically motivated to be more productive and are also more loyal to the company, which
    cuts down on recruitment and training costs.

    Another related issue is that of the growing ethnic diversity in the workplace. This is
    particularly true in an age of multinational corporations. We live in the Postmodern era, which
    rejects any sense of absolute truth and argues that the only meaning that exists is that which is
    created by people interacting with one another in various cultures and sub-cultures. From a
    postmodern context, multiculturalism is therefore about encouraging individuals to celebrate
    differences in culture and understand that what they think is true might not work for members
    in other cultural groups. But from a Biblical perspective, we know that there IS in fact absolute
    truth—Jesus Christ came to us as the Living Word of God to fulfill God’s ultimate and
    transcendent sense of justice and love—truths which go beyond cultural boundaries.
    Therefore, we appreciate cultural diversity, but we do so because we can appreciate how each


    culture in its own unique and special way, can speak to God’s glory and the dignity of human
    beings. So we celebrate multiculturalism because first and foremost, we celebrate God as the
    ultimate source of Truth and one another as being made in His image.

    So how does all of this impact the workplace? Wise companies should appreciate that
    members from different cultural groups have unique ways of looking at things and making
    sense of life. Rather than embracing moral relativism, which is not in keeping with Biblical
    truths, organizational leaders should nevertheless encourage employees to appreciate how
    their own worldview has its own strengths and weaknesses, and therefore to appreciate the
    need to work with others to shore up those weaknesses. Diversity training can often be viewed
    as a political correct means of doing this. Motivated by the moral ambiguity associated with
    postmodern multiculturalism, such training bends over backward to affirm that “no one way is
    right” and that all cultures should be respected and valued. All of this can seem like a waste of
    time to many employees. However, if diversity training instead focuses on celebrating
    different cultures and the fact that everyone has different intellectual, conceptual, and
    emotional strengths and weaknesses that derive from one’s personality, culture, and
    worldview, the end result will hopefully be an increase in “big picture” thinking and an
    understanding of how individual and unique human beings, from wonderfully different cultural
    backgrounds, can learn to work together, lean on one another, be accountable to one another,
    and care for one another. This is what covenant is all about, after all, and more to the point,
    what life should be all about.

    Back to Table of Contents


    LESSON 10: Organizational Change and
    Stress Management


    • Global, ultra-competitive, and fast-paced environment
    • Past success doesn’t matter!
    • Rapid technological changes
    • Customer demands
    • Covenantal Behavior and Change

    There are at least three reasons why today’s companies need to be aware of change and the
    need for change. As the economy becomes increasingly global, companies have to compete
    not only with local and national competitors but now multinational ones. This has lead to an
    ultra-competitive atmosphere where many companies cannot just assume that current
    success will lead to future success. On the contrary, past success can often set the stage for
    future failure because successful companies become complacent in their efforts and do not
    assume that competitors will emerge to take away their business. Companies have to be wary
    of this and the fast-paced nature of the business world.

    Rapidly changing technology can also dramatically impact an organization. The dramatic
    developments that we have seen in the Information Age have meant that companies can do
    wonderful things to advance their brand and products or services and maximize efficiency and
    effectiveness. Maintaining a technological advantage (or at the very least staying even) with
    one’s competitors is a vital necessity in today’s competitive climate. But often, technological
    innovations can cause a dramatic reshaping of how a compnay does business. These changes
    can even affect its culture.

    Likewise, with the high degree of competition in the business world, customers have come to
    expect a constant rate of improvements among products and services, and a wide array of
    products or services from different companies from which to choose. Companies have to be
    aware of this and therefore need to be proactive in developing and improving products and
    services which will keep their customers happy.

    Having said all of that, when change is necessary, companies need to proceed with a solid
    game plan instead of being motivated by fear and knee-jerk reactions. Covenantal behavior
    ensures that big-picture thinking is in place. In this case, hopefully the company will be aware
    of changes in the environment with regards to technology, changing customer needs and
    wants, and new competition in enough time to not only react, but respond proactively.


    Ultimately, what a company wants is an organizational culture that is proactive, self-aware,
    and flexible. Covenantal behavior can help achieve this.


    Covenantal behaviors:

    o Communication
    o Dialogue
    o Participatory Decision-making
    o Empowerment
    o Selection of people who select change

    Potential Vision Killers:

    o Manipulation and Cooptation
    o Coercion

    The problem with any change initiative within a company is that there can be pockets of
    resistance during the process—employees, managers, etc. who do not like the process or the
    eventual outcome. Leaders need to be able to overcome this resistance and build consensus
    for the future.

    The most effective means of doing so fall in the category of covenantal behaviors, the first of
    which is communication. Leaders need to effectively communicate why the change is
    necessary. This involves “big picture” training, where employees are made aware of change
    and understand all of the implications associated with the change, the impact of the change,
    and the potential dangers that might exist if change is not made. Leaders also need to
    understand that communicating change is a constant process where they give frequent
    updates to employees about what is going on. Remember that the fear of the unknown has
    great power. Leaders can remove that fear by being in touch frequently with employees. And
    really, to communicate effectively, a dialogue pr0cess with employees is necessary. Ideally,
    leaders and employees are already in communication with one another about what is going on
    with customers and the competition, and what possibilities may exist to expand the business.
    As leaders communicate the need for change, they need to engage in active listening, where
    they truly hear, absorb, and respond to the concerns and feelings of employees. This is
    important for two reasons. First, as mentioned in previous lessons, employees often have
    valuable feedback and information about what is going on “in the trenches” in the
    organization. Any plans to implement change must include this valuable information.


    Secondly, leaders need to be aware how employees are reacting emotionally to the proposed
    changes. When it comes down to it, employees just have to what the leadership team says,
    but if leaders do not really care what employees are feeling, they will find that their proposed
    initiatives for change will only be carried out half-heartedly and begrudgingly by employees.
    To be sure, leaders should have no tolerance for employees who are trouble causers or lazy.
    But change can cause a lot of consternation even among good employees and leaders need to
    do a good job of constantly staying in touch with employees and updating them on what is
    going on and how it will affect their jobs.

    Ultimately, communication and dialogue should lead to participative decision making, where
    as much as possible, employees should have insight into the nature of the change and how the
    change should be carried out. This again assumes that employees are thinking in terms of the
    big picture as opposed to just their own parochial concerns. Providing employees with this
    power (empowerment) can create a lot of buy-in for the change. Ultimately, what all of these
    covenantal behaviors are about is turning resistance into a positive force, in two ways. First,
    resistance can be a source of valuable feedback for leaders, potentially identifying blind spots
    and incorrect assumptions on the part of the leadership team. Secondly, the very act of truly
    listening to and acting upon employee concerns is a power in and of itself, because it shows
    employees that leaders really care about them and their insights. This can really lift up the
    morale of employees and get them motivated for change.

    The counterpoint to all of this is that some employees are neither motivated to truly embrace
    change nor willing to look beyond their own interests. In such cases, leaders do well to
    recognize and further empower those employees who are willing to embrace change and
    lead the way in the change. After all, companies should always be looking to reward and
    develop their most promising and engaged employees. This is one way of doing so.

    There are also ways to enforce change that run the potential of being vision killers, even if
    they accomplish the purpose of creating buy-in. Manipulation, for example, seeks to persuade
    organizational members of the need for change in ways that are less than forthright. Even if
    this manipulation is initially effective, it could so easily backfire and therefore should be
    avoided. Likewise, cooption involves some level of buying out members of the resistance by
    giving them a key role in the change process. This is different from having true dialogue and
    participative decision making and letting all employees share their concerns, especially if other
    employees feel like it was all about political maneuverings which overlooked the “little guy.”
    All of this can breed resentment, which in turn poisons the culture of the organization.



    • Lewin’s Three-Step Change Model
    • Action Research
    • Kotter’s Eight-Step Plan

    Organizational Development:

    • Sensitivity Training
    • Survey Diagnostic Feedback
    • Process Consultation
    • Team Building
    • Intergroup Development
    • Appreciative Inquiry

    There are many strategies out there for implementing change. Lewin’s Three-Step Change
    Model, for instance, includes unfreezing the status quo, movement to a desired end state, and
    refreezing the new change to make it permanent. This approach is slightly reductionistic, as
    there will always be the need to evaluate any changes made and to make further changes as
    necessary. But it is helpful in identifying a basic process for change and in identifying
    restraining forces to change and driving forces for change.

    Action research provides a scientific, focused model for identifying changes and proceeding
    with addressing those problems. It includes an evaluation of the change and incorporates
    employee feedback (participate decision-making) into the planning phase of the process.

    Kotter’s approach is far more detailed and seems to focus more on the “people” side of the
    change process—identifying the importance of effective communication, consensus-building,
    empowerment, etc. But it also involves evaluating the change and making necessary
    adjustments and reinforcing the change by showing how the new behaviors set in place as a
    result of change leads to organizational success. This final point again goes back to the
    importance of having a continuing among between leaders and employees, and furthermore is
    very much related to “big picture” thinking.

    Finally, whereas the three approaches discussed above represent clear processes, the
    Organizational Development (OD) approach is more of a broad perspective on how changes
    should be made. It is based upon the following principles: respect for people, building trust
    and support, sharing power, confrontation (i.e., an open and honest discussion about problems
    and issues in the organization), and participation. These concepts are quite “covenantal” in
    their nature, and really are ends unto themselves in terms of how a company should operate.


    Based upon these general principles the OD perspective offers are variety of specific strategies
    for encouraging change. For instance, sensitivity training is a process of unstructured group
    interaction that allows group members to build-consensus, identify group blind spots and
    weaknesses, and get everyone on the same page intellectually, emotionally, and strategically.
    Survey feedback can be used within a group or within the entire organization to measure
    employee assessments of processes, decision-making, goals, communication, teamwork, etc.
    Both of these processes encourage “big picture” thinking, and both help to increase
    organizational self-awareness by helping organizational members to identify weaknesses and
    blind spots.

    Likewise, process consultation involves the use of a consultant who works with an
    organization to help organizational members identify blind spots and move forward with
    change. In one sense, the use of a consultant is a form of accountability, because
    organizational members are opening themselves up to critique and assistance from an outside,
    objective source. As such, it is an acknowledgement that merely conducting business as usual
    without any evaluation is not healthy.

    Team building activities, as the name suggests, are designed to encourage greater
    communication, trust and mutual support among members within a group. This can be an
    especially important process for companies who rely upon self-managed teams to get things
    done. At a higher level, intergroup development encourages various groups and departments
    to work together as one unit, getting them to look past their own group or departmental
    concerns, and removing competition and conflict among groups/departments (mutual care
    and accountability). This process furthermore encourages groups/departments to
    acknowledge their perceptions of one another, to share the rationale behind each
    group/departments goals and policies, and to ensure that these goals and policies are not at
    cross purposes with one another (which of course can be a huge source of conflict and
    resentment in any organization). Ultimately, groups/departments involved in this process
    should work to ensure that all of their goals and policies are geared towards what is best for
    the organization and not just their own group/department (“big picture” thinking).

    Whereas all of the above strategies focus on identifying problems, weaknesses, and blind
    spots, Appreciative Inquiry (AI) encourages organizational members to focus on the positive
    things the organization can accomplish when everyone is working together (consensus-
    building and big picture thinking). It encourages members to share their experiences and
    memories about what makes the organization special to them, and what makes their work
    fulfilling. This process of sharing generates excitement among all of the members about the
    organization, and then focuses them to look for the exciting possibilities that would
    encapsulate for them what the organization should be about. This is not just a fluffy emotional
    process; the AI process should lead to specific items for change that can help the organization
    succeed in real and practical ways. The AI process therefore is about generating positive
    change and motivating organizational members with excitement rather than focusing on
    organizational problems. However, AI should not be used to gloss over problems; if employees


    see it as an attempt by leadership to distract them from unaddressed problems, it could breed
    resentment and resistance (vision killers).

    As seen, all of these OD strategies are in keeping with covenantal behavior, as mentioned
    earlier, the entire thrust of OD is really about creating an organization that is covenantal in its
    processes, goals and strategies. It focuses not just on the change initiative itself, but on how
    an organization achieves change and in general how it conducts itself with its own members
    and customers. In the end, that really is the point—creating a self-sustaining, healthy
    organizational culture. The next section will provide further ways to create a healthy culture
    that embraces change and growth.


    Encouraging Innovation:

    o Structural variables
    o Cultural variables
    o Human Resource variables

    Creating a Learning Organization:

    o Double-loop learning
    o Removing fragmentation, competition, and reactiveness
    o Covenantal behavior

    These two concepts are related. The first is a bit more focused on a specific type of change—
    innovation. Companies that encourage innovation will be more likely to develop new products
    and services which will keep them ahead of the competition in meeting customer needs. To do
    so, certain variables need to be in place. Structurally, organizations need to be more organic
    and less bureaucratic. Organic organizations encourage flexibility, adaptation, and cross-
    fertilization. Also, companies need to develop managers and keep them with the company, to
    build up a long-term base of knowledge, insight, and intuition. Having to constantly hire and
    train new employees stymies innovation. Culturally, organizations need to encourage
    experimentation. Failures should not be punished but should be viewed as learning
    opportunities which will eventually lead to success. In terms of human resource policies and
    planning, organizations need to incorporate policies aimed at developing their employees by
    increasing their knowledge of subject matters related to their jobs, encouraging them to think
    outside the box, and identifying and encouraging idea champions who get excited about
    innovation and are who are willing to take risks.


    A more ambitious cultural perspective is that of creating a learning organization. This
    approach goes beyond merely encouraging innovation to a more general focus on enhancing
    adaptability and proactivity in embracing change. The first way this is accomplished is through
    double-loop learning, which focuses not just on solving a particular problem, which could be
    just a symptom, but also on addressing the causes of the problem, which often exist in
    organizational policies, procedures, strategies and goals and other deeply rooted (and
    therefore rarely evaluated) assumptions of the organization. Obviously, this is consistent with
    “big picture” thinking.

    Double-loop learning seeks to address three critical problems that can beset organizations:
    fragmentation (also known as rigid compartmentalization, wherein various departments are
    inward looking and therefore do not really interact meaningfully with one another to achieve
    common goals), competition, where members are too busy preserving their own stake and
    power in the company to truly identify weaknesses and solve problems, and reactiveness,
    which focuses more on removing problems as opposed to proactively creating a positive, self-
    sustaining organizational culture of teamwork and innovation.

    Recommendations exist for creating a learning culture. For starters, leaders should
    communicate a new strategy of learning to members in addition to adopting a more organic
    structure. Leaders should also reshape the organization’s culture by encouraging risk-taking
    and experimentation and attacking fragmentation, competition, and reactiveness. This brings
    us back to the importance of covenantal behavior. These changes really cannot be
    implemented unless leaders are accountable to followers and vice versa. Mutual accountability
    encourages active dialogue and participative decision making. It also prevents “vision killers”
    which can undermine any beneficial changes.


    • Communication, Dialogue, and Participative Decision Making
    • Empowerment
    • Goal-setting
    • Job-Fit
    • HR policies
    • Conflict Resolution


    Impending change can of course cause stress, but in addition, there are any number of
    stressors that can hurt employee morale and undermine productivity. An organization that
    acts covenantally can significantly reduce stress. For instance, consistent communication,
    active dialoguing, and participative decision-making can not only help employees feel more
    valued and care for, but can give them a greater sense of control over their environment.
    Likewise, empowering employees by giving them greater control over their work (which is also
    related to “quality of workmanship”) can help to reduce stress.

    The use of goal-setting, especially when done with employee participation, reduces
    uncertainty for employees and increases intrinsic motivation. Specifically, remember that the
    performance evaluation process can be a great source of stress if employees are unaware of
    what is expected of them and are not getting any helpful and timely feedback from
    supervisors. Goal-setting can help reduce this source of stress.

    Putting the right employees in the right positions (job-fit) acknowledges that each individual is
    uniquely gifted and should be put in a position where he is most likely to succeed. This is a key
    element of covenantal behavior—acknowledging the value of each member, and being in a
    position that does not draw on an employee’s strengths can certainly be a source of stress!

    HR policies can also be used to remove stress. Allowing for flexible work schedules,
    telecommuting, and implementing wellness programs are a way of caring for employees and
    acknowledging that they are more than just worker drones. These types of policies can also
    help employees resolve the work-life conflict.

    Finally, organizations whose employees are trained in effective conflict resolution will have
    less stress because conflict will become functional and positive. As discussed earlier, functional
    conflict can actually provide a lot of momentum for solving problems and getting things done
    in an organization. Furthermore, remember that a covenant is more than just performing
    contractual duties; it is about creating and maintaining a relationship of mutual care and
    support. Companies that create and encourage a covenantal culture will therefore be a
    happier place to work for employees as opposed to a source of stress and discouragement.

    Back to Table of Contents



      LESSON 1: A Worldview Perspective on Organizational Behavior

      What is a Worldview?

      Worldview as a Home

      What is Your Worldview?

      Defining the Christian Worldview

      Application to Organizational Behavior

      The Biblical Idea of Covenant

      Important Covenantal Terms

      History of Covenant

      A Covenantal Model for Organizational Behavior



      LESSON 2: Individual Behavior in the Organization


      Personality and Abilities


      Ethical Perspectives


      Emotions and Moods


      Emotional Intelligence

      Job Satisfaction

      Effective Job Attitudes

      Decision Making Constraints

      Dealing with Constraints and Biases

      LESSON 3: Motivating Employees

      Motivational Theories

      Early Motivation Theories

      Contemporary Motivation Theories

      Employee Participation

      Payment Programs

      Flexible Benefits

      Intrinsic Rewards

      Biblical Summary

      LESSON 4: Group Behavior and Work Teams

      Group Behavior

      Stages of Group Development

      Group Properties

      Group Decision Making

      Differences between Groups and Teams

      Types of Teams

      Factors Relating to Successful Teams


      Team Composition

      Work Design—think “covenantally”

      Team Processes

      Turning Individuals into Team Players

      When Should Teams Be Used?

      LESSON 5: Organizational Communication

      Formal and Informal Channels

      Direction of Communication

      Interpersonal Communication

      Organizational Components

      Which Channel to Use?

      LESSON 6: Leadership

      Defining leadership

      Trait Theories

      Behavioral Theories

      Contingency Theories

      Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory

      Inspirational Approaches

      Authentic Leadership

      Defining Trust

      Mentoring as Leadership


      Challenges to Leadership Construct

      LESSON 7: Politics, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution

      Motivations for Power

      Dependency and Power

      Sources of Power

      Power Tactics

      Sexual Harrassment

      The Interactionist View of Conflict

      The Conflict Process

      Negotiation: Bargaining Strategies

      LESSON 8: Structure and Culture

      History of Organizational Perspectives

      Work Specialization & Structure

      Control, Effectiveness & Structure

      Departmentalization and StRucture

      Cultures as Shared Meaning

      Creating a Positive Culture

      Spirituality in the Workplace

      LESSON 9: Human Resource Policies


      Selection Practices

      Effective Selection Processes

      Training and Development

      Performance Evaluation

      HR Policies and Labor Relations

      Managing a Diverse Workforce

      LESSON 10: Organizational Change and Stress Management

      The Context of Change

      Overcoming Resistance to Change

      Strategies for Change

      Creating a Culture of Change

      Managing Stress through Covenantal behavior

    Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.


    Designing and Managing Organizations


    1. Understanding the impact of early scholars on organization and management

    2. Understanding the role of human behavior in organizations

    3. Comprehending the connection between organizations and their environments

    4. Learning about the importance of organizational culture

    5. Exploring postmodern perspective on organizations


    The ideas that underlie the way in which managers behave form the basis for this chapter, which

    examines the traditional views regarding the functions of managers along with important new

    approaches to organization development and management. Discussions range from early writers

    in the field who focused on the importance of organizational structure to more contemporary

    theories that balance structure with human behavior and organizational culture and values. The

    authors argue that an understanding of how organizations are structured and how they influence

    behavior is crucial to success in public administration as administrators are challenged to find a

    form of management that is compatible with the requirements of a democratic society.

    The chapter opens with a discussion about how and why human beings create organizations,

    noting both the advantages and drawbacks to formal organizations. The discussion then turns to

    the images that managers carry in their heads about how public organizations should operate and

    how individual managers should act, images that direct people’s actions and shape their work in

    specific ways. In order for managers to sharpen those images, it is helpful to learn what scholars

    and practitioners in the field have said about public management. The balance of the chapter

    reviews some of the most influential theories and approaches to designing and managing public


    This review begins with an overview of structural approaches, including the POSDCORB

    formulation of the functions of management; Weber’s characterization of bureaucracy; the

    “scientific management” approach; and the importance of the division of labor. Early writers on

    public administration strove to apply “correct” principles of administration based on the

    assumption that government organizations were essentially the same as those of the business

    world. However, these approaches considered only the need for efficiency and did not take into

    account other values inherent in a democratic form of government. In addition, these approaches

    did not consider how individual behavior might affect the rigid structures they described.

    The chapter then turns to approaches to management based on human behavior, noting that

    consideration about how the behavior of humans affected organizational life was spurred in the

    mid-1920s by unexpected findings from the Hawthorne studies. These results pointed to the

    importance of paying attention to both the formal structure of work processes and the patterns of

    informal relationships among those involved in the structure, resulting in a number of studies

    100 Chapter 8: Designing and Managing Organizations

    Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

    being undertaken that dealt with the relationship between workers and managers. Some observers

    suggested that when managers treated workers differently, it could affect the work they did.

    Others addressed the issue of rationality in human behavior, while still others explored the

    interaction between individuals and the organization. This shift from a focus on structure to a

    consideration of human behavior suggested that the job of a manager is to direct behavior of

    individuals toward the purposes of the organization.

    The authors point out that while the emphasis first on structure and then on human behavior was

    important in focusing attention on critical aspects of organizational life, neither point of view

    took into consideration the relationship between the organization and its environment. Thus, the

    chapter turns next to a discussion of the systems approach, the political economy approach, and

    other more complex approaches to the design and management of organizations, including public

    choice, New Public Administration, and organization development. This section also examines

    the importance of decision making in organizations.

    Issues of organizational culture, organizational learning, and strategic management are then

    examined. The authors note the importance of organizational culture—the deeper,

    unacknowledged system of values and beliefs that define the organization as a whole and

    influence the way in which the organization communicates, its system of reward, and the way in

    which members see themselves and the outside world. Organizational culture also is a critical

    factor in organizational change, organizational learning, and in strategic management approaches.

    From this discussion, the authors suggest guidelines for the practice of public management. The

    chapter closes with a discussion of postmodern critiques of organization and management theory.





    A. The Early Writers: A Concern for Structure


    A. Two Classic Works


    A. Systems Theory

    B. From Political Economy to Organization Development

    C. Decision Making in Organizations




    A. Guidelines for Public Management


    A. Postmodernism

    B. Issues of Gender and Power


    Chapter 8: Designing and Managing Organizations 101

    Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.


    Area of acceptance Area within which the subordinate is willing to accept the decisions made

    by the supervisor.

    Boundary spanning Representing an organization to outside groups and organizations.

    Bounded rationality Seeking the best possible solution, but not necessarily the most rational,

    from a purely economic standpoint.

    Functional principle Horizontal division of labor.

    Organization development Process-oriented approach to planned change.

    Organizational culture Basic patterns of attitudes, beliefs, and values that underlie an

    organization’s operation.

    Political economy approach Focusing on politics and economies as categories for analyzing

    organizational behavior.

    Scalar principle Vertical division of labor among various organizational levels.

    Scientific management Approach to management based on carefully defined laws, rules, and


    Systems approach Suggestion that public (or other) organizations can be viewed in the same

    general way as biological or physical systems.


    The following are links to research and information sources regarding general principles of

    organization theory and behavior:

    Academy of Management Online: (

    Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology: (

    Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences: (

    Electronic Journal of Radical Organization Theory: (

    MIT’s Society for Organizational Learning: (



    Welcome to week four’s presentation on the classics of organization theory. As you know, the foundation of public organizations is based on a classical theory going back to the theory of scientific management during the days of the Industrial Revolution and the changes that were taking place in organizations at that time. There are basically three theories of organizations. The first is the classical theory, which is related to a system of activities in an organization. The people within those organizations, how they move together, tour to go, and authority or hierarchy in terms of leadership. Neoclassical theory is the next stage which is more functional, more scaler, more related to line and staff in terms of the hierarchy and the roles and responsibilities in that hierarchy, and then span of control. And then the third theory of organization is a more systems R3, which is based on the individual’s role, the small groups, and the setting itself where it takes place. Classic organization theory. Basically, there are two perspectives. Number one, the earliest perspective by Henri Fayol is scientific management. The next perspective is administrative management. Frederick Taylor is in Luther ghoulish, probably the two most known in that perspective of classical organization theory. What are the principles of classical organization theory? You have the principle of hierarchy. That each lower office is really under their control and supervision of an office that’s higher than them. You have labor that’s divided based on a worker specialization. And they’re limited number of responsibilities. And it’s governed by policies and procedures that help admin section. You also have written administrative acts. There is authority, your organization based on that hierarchy. And when you sit in that hierarchy, and that people that work within that Pocock organization a hard based on their training and their qualifications. The major contributions to classical organization theory, the scientific management, which is the management of work and workers, was espoused by Frederick Taylor. Administrative management addresses issues related to how to organization. Structure involved there is Henri Fayol lead to Google that Max Vaber is the father of bureaucratic bureaucratic organizations. And Chester Barnard, who has written on the structure of public organizations. Frederick Taylor, basically, he undertook time motion studies and studied the productivity of the workers. This form of organization or classical organization that’s very, very impersonal because it relates to, to workers themselves. But the work that they do. He’s more interested in how efficient because workers can be and how much they can actually produce. The key points as scientific management, job analysis, selection of personnel, cooperation by managers with workers, and supervision in terms of plan and organize and decision-making activities. They grew, lick established an Institute of Public Administration at Columbia University. He also served in FDR’s administration. He basically expanded fails functions into seven. Postcard. Post score stands for POS, the CLR, me, which is an acronym for the first letters in the following. Functions. Planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. In addition, another leading classical theorist in most well-known, who was a German sociologist, Max Weber. Max Vaber is really the father of bureaucratic organizations. In that he defined bureaucratic administration as the exercise of control. Based on knowledge of the principles of bureaucracy. Division of labor. Work is divided based on people specializations in, based on their rank and rural in the organization. He also mentioned that there was a well-defined hierarchy of authority within a bureaucratic organization. That these organizations were governed by rules, regulations, and procedures. They’re very impersonal. And that technical competence determine whether someone works in that organization. whether someone works in that organization. Power and authority was extremely important in a bureaucratic organization. According vapor, he classified organizations according to their legitimacy of their power. He used three classifications. Charismatic authority, traditional authority, and rational least a legal authority. He recognized that rational-legal authority was the most efficient form because it provided for the obedience from members of the organization. That’s very important thing and bureaucratic, bureaucratic organization, classical organization that those that work there are very obedient to the leaders in that organization hierarchy to be maintained. He also stated that there was a continuous system of authorized jobs. And those jobs basically were set in stone by those rules, regulations, and procedures. That there was a sphere of competence based on how labor was divided so that various workers within that bureaucratic organization became specialized. There was also a chain of command. In terms of the offices within that organization. There was no partiality either for or against various members in our organization. That there’s free selection of appointed officials. There’s equal opportunity to be part of that organization based on your technical skills, your professional competence. Even though there’s a bureaucratic organization with a hierarchy, God has a hierarchy house of God, the Father, Jesus Christ, But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you. Matthew 633. I’ll sell for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall you take care of the church of God? It’s 1st Timothy. And related to your employer and what savvy you do, do it heartily as to the Lord and not unto men less than collagens. The next theory is. The Management. And that was put forward by Chester Barnard. Chester Barnard wrote an article back in the late 30s called the functions of the executive. And the importance of, of that article basically talked about the mission and purpose of the organization. The idea of hiring specialists, and the importance of effective communication, which we talked about last week. The key contributions of administrative management are that it recognize management as a profession like medicine or law. This is the first time that organizational theory mentioned that public administration was a profession. So let’s move on to neoclassical management. In 1920s, there were many critics that pointed out the problems of the bureaucratic organization. That we need to move beyond the classical approach for organizations. And that there were difficulties when we tried to standardize people as well as their jobs. So out of the 1930s, the human factor became important in terms of how humans were influenced and how they related to productivity. The human relation studies that’s very well-known is the Hawthorne studies. And the Hawthorne studies were conducted at Western Electric. They were productivity studies, but the studies weren’t so much based on what people help people produce, but how they react to their behavior during that productivity study. Also, a Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is also part of the human relations approach to the classical organisations. The Hawthorne studies, as I said, were conducted and Western Electric and what they were doing is trying to determine what effect changing the lighting and other physical factors in the factory itself had on people who work there. The problem was productivity did increase, but it had nothing to do with the physical factors. The, their human behavior was that says to people knew they were being watched. That’s why their productivity increase. That’s called the Hawthorne effect. And the Hawthorne effect is a phenomenon that is even study today. In public organizations when people know that they’re being watched, their productivity tends to increase. We mentioned Maslov’s, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Psychological being the most for food, water, and so forth. Safety and security all the way up to be in self-actualize. God has a hierarchy of needs. At the bottom is the rest of the world. Then your employer, church, family, husband and children. And then up to top of the hierarchy is God and Jesus. The third is the systems. Organizations exist and environment. There’s social, cultural, and technological factors in those organizations that must be studied. Have organizations aren’t complex sets a units. They have to be control, maintained, and coordinated. You have to look at all the linkages within that system and how decisions are made within that system, within the system and between networks outside that system. Some of the system theories that have been studied are managed by organizations. And total quality management. All parts of the system or in the open systems approach and contingency theory was put forward by James Thompson, who was a political philosopher and a public administration researcher from Princeton University. He wrote organizations and actions with the dominant coalitions tend to set up closed systems and data. Taxes and increase. Organizations will adapt. And they have become more flexible and more decentralized. We know that a dam a brought forward Total Quality Management from the Japanese. And this is an area that’s well studied and public organizations called Japanese management. So those are the three classical theories and public organizations. We went through those very quickly, but there are some articles that can be read on those. There’s a great book by J chef rates and hide on the classics of public administration. There’s also another book by shaft on the classics of organization theory. So I would invite you to look at those books as well as some other articles that relate to the different models and methods of public organizations. Thank you.


    Organizational Structure & Culture Assignment

    Treylesia L. Alston

    School of Behavioral Sciences, Liberty University

    Author Note

    Treylesia L. Alston (L32443087)

    I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

    Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Treylesia L. Alston




    The application of statesmanship in public administration encounters several issues while

    handling institutional transformation. A statesman should possess four essential traits: a

    compelling vision, a solid foundation of values, the capacity to mobilize support for that vision,

    and a moral compass. The adoption of modern innovations has recently sparked riots because the

    public lacked understanding of whatever they included, whether they might profit, and a host of

    additional issues raised throughout the rallies. In deploying modern technology, the protestors

    provide the state sector with several difficulties. National policy is complicated, and

    communicating ideas to the general national is a significant challenge. Technology competence

    between state officials is essential for the successful deployment of modern innovations.

    Showcasing the newest ideas is challenging due to numerous government officials’ lack of

    expertise and expertise in modern technology. According to a 2018 analysis, several initiatives

    are doomed to failure if a legislator frequently fills the venture coordinator role with minimal to

    no expertise in the industry. Public strategies are influenced by sociopolitical influences, which

    have an impact on how changes are implemented. To guarantee the efficient provision of

    services, the constituent’s administration centers on including several aspects. Diplomacy and

    conflict settlement is essential when managing constituents and responding to sociopolitical


    Mecca Carter-Marshall
    You want to include the citation your referenced.


    Organizational Structure & Culture

    The qualities, talents, or behaviors of a person who demonstrates exceptional insight and

    capabilities while managing matters of state or public concerns are sometimes compared to the

    notion of statesmanship. The idea has a contradictory connection because it has been transmitted

    through prehistoric cultures to the present day (Jones, 2019). The concept offers room for

    modern philosophies like judicial and executive statesmanship. While handling institutional

    transformation, the statesman application in public administration encounters several issues. A

    statesman should possess four essential traits: a compelling vision, a solid foundation of values,

    the capacity to mobilize support for that vision, and a moral compass (Figueroa, 2018). The

    application of such ideas is crucial for making lasting improvements. Various elements that need

    to be considered for successful institutional transformation in governmental management include


    centralization, fellowship, operations research and concern for the environment, ability to

    respond to political movements and component control, appropriate emergency control and

    diplomacy, and others.


    Now, e-governance deployment has led to inefficient resource delivery to residents.

    Through this method, the authorities and the populace now communicate more often, and

    services are delivered in less period. For example, the automobile department was infamous for

    its lengthy licensing procedures (Drive Safely, 2020). Nowadays, all that is needed is a quick

    digital reservation and a single trip to the office. It is certain that modern technology will

    complicate public administration, nevertheless. The inference is based on empirical data from

    when authorities implemented novel ideas. As an illustration, over-dependence on fossil fuels

    Mecca Carter-Marshall
    Good – you want to cite this


    resulted in rising needs and finally exhausted reserves. In order to locate renewable energies and

    employ ecological practices, innovative systems have been invented.

    The deployment of e-governance in the USA has been a long and complicated process.

    There have been many different organizations involved in the deployment, each with their own

    agendas and objectives. The process has been further complicated by the fact that the USA is a

    federal system, with each state having its own laws and regulations. The deployment of e-

    governance in the USA started in the early 2000s, with the launch of the e-government initiative

    by the US government. This initiative was designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness

    of government services by making them more accessible to citizens and businesses. The

    initiative included the development of a central portal, known as FirstGov, which provided

    access to government information and services.


    Implementing the principles to be employed in technological acceptance presents a

    difficulty for various governmental agencies, including the medical sector. Various areas of

    society embrace innovation at varying rates (Henry-Nickie et al., 2019). As a result of several

    difficulties, the government industry adopts technologies relatively slower than the corporate

    sphere, which is greater receptive to it and the adoption of cutting-edge methods and instruments.

    There is little question that several individuals, particularly legislative representatives, are

    hesitant concerning the widespread adoption of technologies. The governmental service has

    lagged due to this; although more people are aware of the advantages of modern technology, they

    cannot use such programs at government agencies. As innovation is used, preserving the

    ecosystem and human health is crucial.

    Systems theory and environmental awareness

    Mecca Carter-Marshall
    Good information in this section; however, what does it has to do with covenant? Also, you want to be sure to cite the work included, especially when including dates, placed, etc.

    Mecca Carter-Marshall
    This is good; however, how would you tie this into non-centralization?

    Mecca Carter-Marshall
    This sentence is a bit confusing as written


    The adoption of modern innovations has recently sparked riots because the public lacked

    understanding of whatever they included, whether they might profit, and a host of additional

    issues raised throughout the rallies (Asmolov, 2019). In deploying modern technology, the

    protestors provide the state sector with several difficulties. National policy is complicated, and

    communicating ideas to the general national is a significant challenge. While engaging in

    organizational restructuring, layouts, and hierarchies, novel ways are required. Context-setting is

    crucial while making adjustments. Such a tactic comprises discussing the design’s goals and

    advantages. The technique must be properly comprehended, and potential disagreements about it

    must be settled. Government authorities must remember that citizens pay close attention to

    global events and are likelier to shun technologies that have never been warmly welcomed in

    other countries.

    The bulk of the community, who make up the bottom tiers, must be involved in non-

    centralization. Authorities must include all constituents in judgment calls in order to maintain

    decentralization. Under non-centralization, strong managerial abilities and excellent

    improvement administration are crucial (Wright & Pandey, 2009). In summary, solid

    management skills are usually necessary to develop into a prominent leader. Importantly,

    coaching may be used to teach effective management techniques. A lateral structure, in which a

    uniform pitch is chosen, is highly efficient when introducing modifications. Individuals must

    comprehend all transformation means in order for them to embrace it. To promote cooperation

    among the community and the authorities throughout the deployment of modern technology,

    leadership may engage the public at large.

    Technology competence between state officials is essential for the successful deployment

    of modern innovations. Showcasing the newest ideas is challenging due to numerous government

    Mecca Carter-Marshall
    This is a good discussion for the section above

    Mecca Carter-Marshall


    officials’ lack of expertise and expertise in modern technology. According to a 2018 analysis,

    several initiatives are doomed to failure if a legislator frequently fills the venture coordinator role

    with minimal to no expertise in the industry (Carlton, 2018). Exceptionally, top authorities must

    be competent to communicate with the general population and describe how technological

    innovation affects their way of life. Collaboration between public officials and the business

    community is crucial for implementing innovative change-management techniques (Van der

    Voet, 2014). Despite conventional methods, this technique will aid government administration in

    developing the necessary abilities for execution.

    Responsiveness to political forces and constituent management

    Public strategies are influenced by sociopolitical influences, which have an impact on

    how changes are implemented. To guarantee the efficient provision of services, the constituent’s

    administration centers on including several aspects. Diplomacy and conflict settlement is

    essential when managing constituents and responding to sociopolitical pressures. The people

    oppose several innovations because they think the current models violate their customs

    (Royakkers et al., 2018). Regarding claims that it breaches privacy rights, the people battled

    opposed the deployment of mass video monitoring and continue to do so today (American Civil

    Liberties Union, 2020). It is crucial to resolve disputes whenever engaging with demonstrations.

    Public officials must possess the conflict-resolution skills required to work with the populace.

    Each partner must describe how the improvements would benefit consumers. Acknowledging

    and resolving based on cultural concerns is crucial while introducing modern technology in the

    public sphere to ensure the longevity of the innovation.

    Effective crisis management and statecraft


    People are concerned about how new technology may affect the atmosphere (Pew

    Research Center, 2019). The procedures required to handle the actions endangering the efficient

    provision of services are disaster control in government administration. The opposite of

    statesmanship demands governmental officials to comprehend regulation-making and

    management problems. Strategy formation and evaluation are essential regarding statesmanship,

    strategic planning, and public participation. Public figures usually publicized modern

    innovations’ use (Fischer, 2010). Such an approach is now ineffective and likely to lead to

    widespread public demonstrations. Children’s vaccinations are currently under opposition from

    the government, with several claiming that vaccine requirements violate children’s rights (Zagaja

    et al., 2018). Several claims that mandatory vaccination laws violate their religious convictions,

    yet society approved of the regulations’ implementation. Most individuals seek emotional

    satisfaction in their endeavors (Fischer, 2010). The maximum level of involvement should come

    before the societal level to guarantee the longevity of the novel ideas throughout the transition

    phase; citizen participation, which signifies a contract with the community, is essential.

    The pact is viewed as a legally-binding contract between the inhabitants and the

    government over matters that concern the latter. Research parties, polls, and public forums can

    all be used to accomplish it. For the transformation to be sustainable, it is crucial to involve

    regular people in conversations about technological advances that may affect society.

    Government leaders may use the theoretical approach to address the difficulties encountered in

    various situations. In order to enhance the surroundings, the complexity concept examines the

    limits, circumstances, network interplay, and proactive and inactive subsystems. According to a

    2019 survey, 49% of Americans feel that innovation is the primary driver of human engagement,

    and the actions significantly increase disease hazards and overall environmental catastrophe

    Mecca Carter-Marshall
    Good information here


    (Voulvoulis and Burgman, 2019). Through involvement, society must be reassured about how

    technological advances are made to stop these occurrences.


    In conclusion, the successful implementation of modern technology in public

    administration is essential for ensuring the longevity of improvements and maintaining the

    support of the populace. To achieve this, various factors must be considered, including non-

    centralization, fellowship, operations research and concern for the environment, ability to

    respond to political movements and component control, appropriate emergency control and

    diplomacy, and others. Citizens’ involvement in decisions regarding the introduction of new

    technologies is crucial to guaranteeing the successful deployment of such innovations.

    Furthermore, government officials must be competent in the use of such technologies to ensure

    efficient communication with the public. It is also essential to resolve disputes that may arise due

    to the introduction of new technologies, as well as to take into account the concerns of the people

    regarding the potential impact of such technologies on the environment. In conclusion, the

    successful implementation of modern technology in public administration requires the

    consideration of various factors and the involvement of all stakeholders. Only by taking such

    measures can the government ensure the efficient provision of services to the people.

    Mecca Carter-Marshall



    Fischer, K. (2010). A Biblical-Covenantal Perspective on Organizational Behavior &

    Leadership. 4–88.

    Van der Voet, J. (2014). The effectiveness and specificity of change management in a public

    organization: Transformational leadership and a bureaucratic organizational structure.

    European Management Journal, 32(3), 373–382.

    Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Beeri, I. (2011). Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior in

    Public Administration: The Power of Leadership and the Cost of Organizational Politics.

    Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(3), 573–596.

    Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2009). Transformational Leadership in the Public Sector: Does

    Structure Matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 75–89.

    Jones, H. (2019). Searching for Statesmanship: a Corpus-Based Analysis of a Translated

    Political Discourse. Polis: The Journal For Ancient Greek And Roman Political Thought,

    36(2), 216-241.

    Figueroa, O. (2018). Retrieved 7 June 2020, from

    Mecca Carter-Marshall
    you wat to begin at the top of the page

    Mecca Carter-Marshall
    you want to italicize the journal article and volume number

    Mecca Carter-Marshall
    You want to be sure to reference all the sources cited

    Mecca Carter-Marshall


    Drive Safely. (2020). Fast and Easy Illinois Driver’s License Renewal. Auto-Related News,

    Trends, & Tips – I Drive Safely. Retrieved 7 June 2020, from


    Henry-Nickie, M., Frimpong, K., & Sun, H. (2019). Trends in the Information Technology

    sector. Brookings. Retrieved 7 June 2020, from

    Asmolov, G. (2019). Protest technologies: can innovation change the balance of power in

    Russia? openDemocracy. Retrieved 7 June 2020, from

    Carlton, D. (2018). Lack of technical knowledge in leadership is a key reason why so many IT

    projects fail. The Conversation. Retrieved 7 June 2020, from


    Pew Research Center. (2019). 5. Leading concerns about the future of digital life. Pew Research

    Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved 7 June 2020, from


    Royakkers, L., Timmer, J., Kool, L., & van Est, R. (2018). Societal and ethical issues of

    digitization. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(2), 127-142.

    Mecca Carter-Marshall
    you want to your reference list in alphabetical order

    Mecca Carter-Marshall
    you want to italicize the journal article and volume number


    Voulvoulis, N., & Burgman, M. (2019). The contrasting roles of science and technology in

    environmental challenges. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology,

    49(12), 1079-1106.

    Zagaja, A., Patryn, R., Pawlikowski, J., & Sak, J. (2018). Informed Consent in Obligatory

    Vaccinations? Medical Science Monitor, 24, 8506-8509.

    Calculate the price of your order

    550 words
    We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
    Total price:
    The price is based on these factors:
    Academic level
    Number of pages
    Basic features
    • Free title page and bibliography
    • Unlimited revisions
    • Plagiarism-free guarantee
    • Money-back guarantee
    • 24/7 support
    On-demand options
    • Writer’s samples
    • Part-by-part delivery
    • Overnight delivery
    • Copies of used sources
    • Expert Proofreading
    Paper format
    • 275 words per page
    • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
    • Double line spacing
    • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

    Our guarantees

    Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
    That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

    Money-back guarantee

    You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

    Read more

    Zero-plagiarism guarantee

    Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

    Read more

    Free-revision policy

    Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

    Read more

    Confidentiality Guarantee

    Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

    Read more

    Fair-cooperation guarantee

    By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

    Read more

    24/7 Support

    Our specialists are always online to help you! We are available 24/7 via live chat, WhatsApp, and phone to answer questions, correct mistakes, or just address your academic fears.

    See our T&Cs
    Live Chat+1(978) 822-0999EmailWhatsApp

    Order your essay today and save 30% with the discount code ESSAYHELP