How does your decision as an administrator affect the departmental perception on how unmotivated officers are managed and handled?
Understandably, the decision that one, as an administrator, makes when dealing with unmotivated officers is likely to be perceived as the norm among other law enforcers. Halle (n.d.) noted that leaders are able to communicate signals regarding the potential consequences, that is, rewards or punishments, in the event that employees do not fulfill their obligation to an organization. However, most important to note is that leadership style and behavior largely influence the amount of employee voice (Halle, n.d.). Thus, in the case at hand, if an administrator takes a harsh approach in dealing with unmotivated officers, this is likely to limit the amount of voice among other police officers. They are likely to feel that the administrator is not an individual they can raise their concerns to; this is especially when factors leading to low motivation at work are not work-related. Therefore, it is critical for the administrator to understand the underlying causes of low motivation in officers before choosing a course of action.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Is there a possible ripple effect of a decision on how to address an unmotivated employee that will have consequences for how other officers perceive the department and their own levels of motivation?
One should anticipate a ripple effect of a decision an administrator makes to deal with unmotivated employees. This emphasizes more on the need to understand the different types of followers, which will provide a basis to analyze potential responses to the situation at hand. The different types of followers are, the individualist (voices his or her opinion, but is judgmental), the implementer (completes the job without supervision), the resource follower (dependable and reliable), and the partner (highly supportive of the leader) (Chaleff, 2009). Knowing these different types of followers, the individualist is likely to be the one who deviates from or questions the decision the administrator makes to deal with unmotivated officers. He or she is likely to demonstrate some level of defiance when he or she feels that the administrator is pampering others or being too harsh on them. The other followers are likely to remain calm and follow the administrator’s way of leadership, especially the partner followers. Thus, for these followers, the motivational level of the individualist follower is the one likely to be affected either positively or negatively.
How is the disciplinary process either a good or bad way to address an unmotivated employee?
A disciplinary process has good and bad effects when it comes to dealing with unmotivated employees. Notably, disciplinary actions are likely to regulate the behavior of unmotivated employees. Kark, Dijk, and Vashdi (2017) explained the relationship between regulatory behavior and leadership. They noted that when leaders act in a certain way, they either promote self-regulatory goals in followers, or undermine them. Kark, Dijk, and Vashdi (2017) stressed that highly promotion-focused personnel are concerned with growth, and that they are sensitive to existence of rewards. In such a case, when unmotivated employees are subjected to disciplinary action, this is likely to undermine their self-regulatory goals. In such a case, they are likely to become motivated to improve their performance, or in some cases, they can demonstrate further defiance against the leader. Thus, it is important for a leader to be keen on the type of followers one has and how disciplinary processes are likely to affect their loyalty, motivation, as well as productivity.
Does the disciplinary process work against employee motivation? If so how?
As described earlier, the disciplinary process can affect an employee’s motivation. An administrator who uses this approach puts employees in a situation of “ought self” as opposed to a situation of “ideal self” (Kark, Dijk, and Vashdi, 2017). In the former situation, they have to follow certain rules and reach certain milestones for them command a performance review from the administrator. In the latter situation, employees are able to self-regulate, which means that they have the capacity to determine the level of their performance. Thus, with such an understanding, it becomes clear that the disciplinary process might be both inhibitory, and at the same, a source of motivation for employees. This is dependent on the type of followers a leader has.
References
Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders . (3rd Ed). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Halle, Y. (n.d.). Influence of leader and follower behavior on employee voice, team task responsibility, and team effectiveness. Retrieved from https://essay.utwente.nl/69169/1/terHalle_MA_BMS.pdf
Kark, R., Dijk, D. V., & Vashdi, D. R. (2017). Motivated or Demotivated to Be Creative: The Role of Self-Regulatory Focus in Transformational and Transactional Leadership Processes. Applied Psychology,67 (1), 186-224. doi:10.1111/apps.12122
