The Perceptional Gap Between Supervisors and Subordinates: An Analysis

Mean score 

Analysis of the perceptional gap between supervisors and subordinates 

The results for the two groups show a significant difference regarding the frequency in which the supervisors offered each type of recognition. For example, supervisors believed that they gave thanks for well-done jobs at the rate of 51% on average while the subordinates believed they received at the frequency of 14%. This data indicates that employees in most cases believed that the supervisors provided very little recognition at all levels and in cases where they provided rewards, they were provided infrequently. On the other hand, supervisors perceived themselves as giving a wide range of rewards to the workers with the objective of encouraging employees to increase productivity. The results reveal that employees and supervisors were looking for the same reality, but they ended up reaching different conclusions. 

This data reveals the notion that differences are inevitable in a workplace because individuals have their perception on the environment in which they live. Consequently, the differences between employees and supervisors reflect the unique way in which each group perceives the working environment. In this case, supervisors play an essential role in supervising and encouraging employees to increase productivity in an attempt of meeting organizational goals. As a result, they promise rewards as a way of promoting workers compelling them to attach higher frequencies on each type of privilege. When conducting their activities, managers create room for employees to voice out discrepancies without fear but they should do this respecting their masters. The bible demands that employees should respect their supervisors as quoted in the verse “servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh…as unto Christ” (Ephesians 6:5). As a result, workers take an opportunity of the interview to ask for more recognition while supervisors take a chance to inform employees about the availability of rewards and the frequency at which they receive they receive such benefits. 

The gap between the results presented by the supervisors and the subordinates show that perceptions influence reality. The wide gap between the frequency at which supervisors give recognition to workers and the response by workers is wide. In effect, the results show that each group engages in self-fulfilling prophecy which focuses on influencing someone’s perception to compel the individual to behave in a way that is consistent with those expectations (Konopaske et al., 2016). Employees seek to maximize the benefits received for a particular job while managers attempt to win employees to commit to work. In effect, workers have a negative perception about the frequency at which supervisors give benefits to workers. Additionally, employees believe that the types of recognition presented are few and they should be increased to meet workers’ expectations. The duties and responsibilities assigned to each group act as stimuli which compel to react differently to the same issue. 

According to Miner, (2015) the contexts within which candidates for an interview are placed play a significant role in determining the results. The two groups are placed in different levels in the organization, and there are common characteristics for people in the same groups. For example, the two supervisory levels give results that are similar or almost similar for the rate at which they give the benefits to the employers. Similarly, there is some consistency in the manner in the four employees responded to the questions. The difference between one employee's perceptions about the rate at which supervisors give workers the recognition rewards to the other is insignificant. However, this gap widens when comparing the two groups showing a high possibility that the results are inaccurate. These results show that if some of the participants such as the supervisors change their roles to those of the employees, they will give a response that is different from what they provided initially. 

Making judgment from the first implication may end providing inadequate information about an interview thus providing false information about an organization (Pinder, 2014). The results may be inaccurate, therefore, judging the rate at which the organization recognizes employees based on the gap between workers and supervisors' perception may create first impression error. The candidates for the interview may not be representative of all other supervisors or employees in the organization. For example, the employees selected may consist of workers who have never received recognition rewards because they have never achieved the expected qualifications. In effect, they end up giving false information about the employee experience about the rate at which the organization gives recognition. In effect, taking a different sample group may provide results with either a larger gap or small difference between the two groups. This gap indicates that the interview has eliminated many workers and supervisors who may provide a real picture of the organizational behavior. 

References 

Konopaske, R., Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (2016). Organizational behavior and management . McGraw-Hill Education. 

Miner, J. B. (2015).   Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership . Routledge. 

Pinder, C. C. (2014).   Work motivation in organizational behavior . Psychology Press. 

The Holy Bible Authorized King James Version: Containing the Old and New Testaments Translated Out of the Original Tongues, and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised, by His Majesty's Special Command . Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1983. Print.-