Answer

Article Response – Informal Networks: The Company behind the Chart

            Krackhardt and Hanson’s Informal Networks: The Company behind the Chart is an insightful piece which engages its readership in an analytical exploration of the role informal networks assume in organizational practice and performance. According to the authors, managers often overlook informal relationships among the employees when structuring their business, yet these networks are key drivers of success. Their exploration of interesting case scenarios in the computer and banking industries prove that trust and communication are the most valuable aspects of these relationships. When reflecting on this piece, one cannot help but acknowledge the fact that human beings are sophisticated beings in need of personalized interactions to influence their actions.

            Organizational leaders should understand that performance goes beyond the formal structures which are often characterized by bureaucracies and rigidity. As much as these attributes are useful in the management of key business procedures, efficacy is always inspired by the bonds shared by employees. Krackhardt and Hanson’s case of the bank branch with two cultures appears illustrious at this point. While the bureaucratic approach applied by the manager appealed to the tellers, administrative staff, and loan officers, it was considered discriminatory by the staff members who worked during off-peak periods (Krackhardt & Hanson 109). This scenario presents a classic manifestation of low trust and communications in the workplace.

            As highlighted, communication and trust are the cornerstones of effective cooperation and collaboration in the workplace. Such a bold declaration is grounded on the fact that informal relationships are built on these principles rather than the formal rules that define employee tasks. This argument is established in the California Computer Company when Harris is selected to head the task force following his reputation as an expert only to fail as a leader due to the lack of trust among his employees. A competent leader should have the capacity to sway people into the desired direction. This kind of persuasion necessitates reciprocity, especially in matters pertaining to communication and trust.

When placed into perspective, the bank branch with two cultures experienced this kind of systemic failure since the sub-culture was not persuaded to champion the organization’s vision in their practice. In The Science of Persuasion, Robert Cialdini states that people are often swayed when they feel obliged to give as they receive. The employees in the highlighted branch did not receive attention from the top management, so they did not feel any sense of obligation with regards to the bank’s vision (Krackhardt & Hanson 109). Such a scenario would have been avoided if communication and trust was reciprocal throughout the organization. This kind of openness allows employees at the lower levels to share information that might prove crucial at the management level and vice versa.

At this juncture, it is fair to allude that Krackhardt and Hanson’s article offers vital information regarding human resource management. It suffices to argue that competent leaders ought to keep tabs on the informal networks within the organization since they influence practice outcomes. For an organization to achieve success, the manager should foster a culture where employees at all levels engage in reciprocal communication and trust-building activities. Once each employee feels accepted and appreciated for his/her unique role in the firm, everyone will collaborate towards achieving the organization’s goals.

This question has been answered