Job Relations versus Empathy

Greetings LinkedIn World. Since I posted the last article on Green Energy, CRT, and the LGB/T divide a Rutgers’ professor has been identified talking about taking out white MFers, AT&T and Wal Mart have both identified whites as the source of most problems, and AOC has indicated we now have 16 years before parts of the USA are uninhabitable; the world was supposed to end in 12 year so things are better. If AT&T and Wal Mart are sincere each should immediately fire all white employees, contractors, and suppliers while disallowing product and service sales to whites. Simple. The Rutgers’ professor has real issues. Sad. In the real world…

Relationship Management is greater than Empathy?

On a topic related more directly to the effectiveness of organizations Ernst and Young recently published a survey that addressed the need for more empathy in the workplace. Their findings, succinctly, spoke to empathy as being the glue that holds organizations together. I do not have EY’s resources or reputation but I do know that empathy is a topical attitude and behavior. If not used correctly empathy will generate negative reactions – people see through insincere approaches. ?

Leadership Theories. One can study Servant Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Adaptive Leadership, and all the other leadership theories; however, at their essence, each rests upon the foundational Leader Member Exchange theory, or LMX theory, which speaks to the quality of the relationship between the leader and the follower. Quality of the relationship, or lack thereof, is the glue that binds or fails as employees opt to stay or leave an organization. Empathy is a subcomponent variable not the key. LMX theory is worthy of deeper awareness.?

LMX Theory combines Role Theory and Social Exchange Theory. The quality of the relationship between leader and follower is dependent upon the follower’s role level and the degree of social exchanges that occur. In role theory every follower is in one of three potential role levels, i.e., role taking, role making, or role routinization.

·??????A new hire is in the role taking level, social exchanges are minimal as the parties begin to learn each other, and commitment is weak. The parties are gauging each other. Followers typically have a “what’s in it for me” approach while leaders are gauging willingness to learn and to adapt to the organizational culture and expectations. Social exchanges are typically directive in nature from the leader.

·??????In the role making level the parties are still gauging each other’s trustworthiness, social exchanges may be increasing, and commitment may be moderate but not necessarily high. This is the make-or-break point for the quality of the relationship, e.g., if the social exchanges do not increase to the level of mutual respect and mutual obligation then trust will not occur. For many relationships the social exchanges never lead to trust.

·??????In role routinization mutual respect, mutual obligation, and trust abound as each party works to ensure the success of the other, social exchanges are high, and the leader typically provides increasing resources and opportunities to the follower to ensure continued growth and success. In role routinization the follower self-identifies with the organization. It is at this role level that empathy increases commitment. The follower is well beyond the “what’s in it for me” mindset and the success of the organization is considered personal success.?

Role Theory is not commonly discussed from the author’s experience yet it is well known in the world of work as cliques, the boss’ favorites, or in- and out-groups. The same is true with Social Exchange theory as those in the role routinization level are often not well regarded by followers in lower role levels. The reverse is also often true. LMX theory has much deeper and broader application to organizational effectiveness but those topics exceed the scope of this article. ?

Job Relations versus Employee Relations. The pandemic has exacerbated the above as leaders react to the changing environment and followers, especially at the lower levels of pay, are fleeing the world of work. From a high level the author believes those responsible for pay and benefit setting must under the labor economic term Elasticity of Demand to better understand the current high levels of attrition. Elasticity of Demand will drive unexpected changes.

From the CEO and subordinate leader level, beyond pay and benefits, attention should be paid to implementing a Job Relations approach versus an Employee Relations approach. The latter is HR centric, oriented towards how the leader enforces compliance, and belies the title, i.e., there is little to no emphasis on actual relationship building with the employees. Job Relations is a World War II approach that taught leaders to focus on the individual from a holistic approach that included work and non-work issues. At the heart of Job Relations was the leader knowing each and every follower and understanding that non-work issues impacted work performance. It was the relationship focus that allowed the leader to exhibit true empathy. If an “employee relations” issue arose the Job Relations approach allowed real-time leader resolution. The two approaches are diametrically opposite. As we change eras and undergo turbulence that is forecasted to last over a decade leaders would do well to adapt approaches. Job Relations versus Employee Relations is critical at this juncture in time.

--------------

The author has experience in large scale implementation of Job Relations in complex work environments. He has modified the WWII approach to a Job Relations 4.0TM format that provides the organization real-time awareness of increases in employee engagement, productivity, and organizational effectiveness. The author also has years of experience in Employee Relations compliance-oriented approaches. The above is based on real-world experience and scars. ?

The author is a VA-certified Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business owner who works under the auspices of Eagle3 Business Services. He holds a Dr. of Strategic Leadership from Regent University, a Master of Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College, and a Master of Public Administration from the former Georgia College. He is a certified Theory of Constraints Jonah and a Lean Green Belt. He is also certified as a Hammer & Company Process Master, a MBTI Practitioner, and was a Gallup Strengths Performance Coach for four years. Dale spent years in Conflict Management as a certified mediator, arbitration advocate, and as a practitioner of negotiation. He holds an Executive Conflict Management certificate from Notre Dame. The author is adept at blending leadership, people, and process into a holistic approach to amplify organizational effectiveness. Dale may be contacted via [email protected].

?