Administrative Style What Theoretical Constructs

Administrative Style

What theoretical constructs describe your administrative style?

The theory that most influences my administrative style is that of contingency theory. I believe that this theory is particularly relevant to the current economic environment because it stresses the interconnectedness of all organizational actors. Teamwork is essential to success in today's business environment. Being an effective leader means more than giving orders, it means being able to adapt one's orders to the motivational needs of the individual and the demands of the immediate situation at hand.

Also, because of the influences of globalization and the more diffuse nature of modern organization, the forward-thinking administrator must be flexible when dealing with different organizational actors, and realize his or her dependence on external forces. When things are changing so rapidly, an administrator cannot be doctrinaire. Dealing with different organizational actors requires the administrator to acknowledge that different departments function in unique ways, and contain within their framework a host of different personalities. An administrator must be sensitive to nuances of interpersonal dynamics, rather than assume a hierarchical or even a participatory style is equally suited to an it department as it is to an HR department within the same company.

Administration by its nature is a 'contingent' activity. When an administrator's goals change because of organizational changes, his or her own style must change. An increase in an organization's size and can change the personal dynamics of the staff. The administrator may have to work harder to seem fair, so as not to create tensions or the appearance of favoritism. In a smaller organization, going by the rules in a strict fashion, without subtly relaxing a bit with a colleague, might be alienating. Administration is not a formula or a recipe, it is a negotiation, and contingency theory, even though it can feel frustratingly vague at times as a guide, at least acknowledges the fact administrators must constantly ask questions of themselves -- the most important of which may be, how have things changed?

Should administrators supervise others in the way the administrator personally prefers to be supervised, or should administrators seek to understand individual employee's needs and motivations?

One of the hardest lessons I have learned as an administrator is not to confuse my personal motivational style with the needs of the people who I oversee. For example, I am very self-motivated, and hate to see a job poorly done. But I have realized that some employees are more motivated by external rather than internal rewards, and thrive on a sense of competition with others, otherwise they will slacken in their duties. These external rewards must also be varied as employees bring different experiences and needs to their work. Showing sensitivity to an individuals' desire to balance career and family by offering flexible work hours vs. A promotion might be better suited to that employee. Using the prospect of promotion might be more motivational for a younger and more driven employee. Some employees work for a paycheck while some are easily bored and seek challenges and the ability to create. Others are cynical and try to cheat the system, while the more idealistic employees at a company might be offended by close oversight and feel as though they were being unfairly mistrusted. Administration is a human function, and an administrator must not apply motivational theory in a cookie-cutter fashion.