Article Critique
Name
Institution
Instructor
Course
Date
Article 1: Shufelt Jr, J. W., & Longenecker, C. O. (2017). Practical lessons learned for dealing with toxic leaders and bad bosses. Military Review, 2, 2-10.
Introduction
The article search process involved; log in to the Ashford University Online Library and searching the words “toxic leaders and bad bosses.” The article elaborates on the reason why some organizations’ bosses portray toxic behavior. It further proposes ways to end undesirable leadership behaviors and prevent them from affecting subordinates’ performance. The authors believe that both the organizations and the subordinates have a role to play to end the problem of toxic bosses and their effects on employees’ performance.
Article Summary
The author notes that The United States Army, as well as some of the American business organizations, have been experiencing the problem of bad bosses and toxic leaders who exhibit counterproductive and undesirable leadership behaviors. These leadership behaviors have continued to affect organizational and individual performance negatively.
The pressure on the organizations’ leaders to achieve high production in a short time and at low costs compel them to exert negative and excessive pressure the employees to put more effort in their work. In most cases, this pressure has unpredictable negative consequences on the employees and the organizations. It creates a bad working relationship between the organizations’ leaders and their subordinates. The ruined relationship demotivates the subordinates and lowers their productivity. It can even damage the long-term career progress of the employees if it is not resolved.
According to the authors, both the organizations and the subordinates have a role to play to end the problem of toxic bosses and their effects on employees’ performance. Organizations should regularly assess the relationship between the bosses and the subordinates and come up solutions to arising relational issues. On their part, subordinates should accept the fact that they do not have the power to change their bosses. They should rather try to accommodate their strengths and weakness but not to let the bosses’ behaviors affect their performance (Shufelt & Longenecker, 2017).
Article Critique
The pressure on the organizations’ leaders to achieve high production in a short time and at low costs is not a valid reason to exhibit counterproductive and undesirable leadership behaviors. The behaviors are just an expression of poor leadership skills and should not be blamed on the pressure. People with good leadership skills would rather strive to maintain a good relationship with their subordinates to motivate them to work hard to achieve high expectations.
By accepting that they do not have the power to change their bosses and their strengths and weakness, subordinates would not have solved the problem of toxic bosses. This is rather a postponement of the problem. The organizations can solve the problem by conducting regular leadership assessment and replacing incompetent leaders with competent ones.
Conclusion
Both the organizations and the subordinates have a role to play to end the problem of toxic bosses and their effects on employees’ performance. Organizations should regularly assess the relationship between the bosses and the subordinates. On their part, subordinates try to accommodate their strengths and weakness but not to let the bosses’ behaviors affect their performance.
Article 2: Oreg, S. (2018). Resistance to change and performance: Toward a more even-handed view of dispositional resistance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(1), 88-107.
Introduction
The article search process involved; log in to the Ashford University Online Library and searching the words “resistance to change and performance.” The article demonstrates how dispositional resistance relates to task performance in workplaces. According to the authors, resistant employees underperform in non-routine tasks, but they perform better than non-resistors on routine duties.
Article summary
In non-routine tasks, dispositional resistance leads to low performance while the same resistance results in high performance in routine work. According to the dispositional resistance’s routine-seeking dimension, the main reason why people resist change is because they prefer working in stable and routine environments. The factors that cause negative reactions to change among the resistant individuals are the same that motivate them to embrace routine and stable situations (Oreg, 2018).
Generally, individuals with high dispositional resistance rarely initiate change even in their issues. At the same time, they tend to oppose changes that other people impose on them. These traits explain the underperformance of such people in non-routine tasks. This is because non-routine tasks involve high complexity; they lack standard solutions and require people to deviate from extant scripts. The resistant individuals lack these abilities due to their fixed mindset on issues (Oreg, 2018).
People with high dispositional resistance are more oriented towards stability and security and have little orientation towards stimulation and autonomy. Therefore, task variety and autonomy do not benefit them much. Instead, the tasks that have limited variety are more beneficial to them. This is why they put more effort into routine tasks because they have limited variety (Oreg, 2018).
Article Critique
I agree that resistant employees underperform in non-routine tasks, but they perform better than non-resistors on routine duties. The routine tasks are less complicated, and they need less effort than the non-routine ones that lack standard solutions in most cases. This explains why individuals with high dispositional resistance perform poorly in non-routine tasks because they do not want to search for solutions. Nonresistors, on the other hand, are flexible to change and are open to changes in the way of doing things. Thus, they are likely to work on non-routine tasks with a positive attitude, contributing to productivity.
Conclusion
Resistant employees underperform in non-routine tasks, but they perform better than non-resistors on routine duties. Non-routine tasks involve high complexity and require flexibility. Individuals with high dispositional resistance underperform in such tasks because of the lack the flexibility.
References
Oreg, S. (2018). Resistance to change and performance: Toward a more even-handed view of dispositional resistance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(1), 88-107.
Shufelt Jr, J. W., & Longenecker, C. O. (2017). Practical lessons learned for dealing with toxic leaders and bad bosses. Military Review, 2, 2-10.