Guidelines: Each student will propose a research project pertinent to a real world problem, containing research questions and aims, literature review, justification for significance and innovation, and practical value. The suggested word length is 2,000 words, including references. The APA reference style should be used.
Assessment criteria:
Research problem: A clearly defined and stated problem for research, and divided into sub questions and aims. (30%)
Literature review: A literature review with width and depth to contextualise and underpin the topic, and justify contribution. (30%)
Significance and innovation, and practical value: A project that addresses a significant issue, and advances innovation in terms of knowledge and approach, and has practical value in the professions or the real world. (30%)
Format: A well-organised structure and appropriate stylistics. (10%)
Microsoft Word - Research Project Sample 1.docx Tittle: Micromanagement in Australian Public Sector: Some unexplored antecedents derived from internal aspects of the Organizational Culture 1. Research Problem Statement In today’s business world, almost everyone is somewhat familiarized with the term micromanagement. Dr Paul Gillard, PhD in industrial/organizational psychology and founder of Transformation Associates, states that “micromanagement is a style of management that is characterized by an excessive need for control and extreme attention to even apparently trivial details” (as cited in Hernandez, 2012, p70). Since first introduced in 1975, the concept of micromanagement has been subject to several studies, however, these extant researches have primarily focused on the negative consequences of micromanagement in the workplace, and largely overlooked understanding what causes it in the first place. The Australian Public Sector is not alien to this reality, while concern over micromanagement in the sector has been growing, empirical investigation of its occurrence remains sparse (Hyacinth, 2018). Lack of knowledge about antecedents of a phenomenon provoke researchers to jump into solutions that might be solving the incorrect problem (Enders, Andreas, & Barsoux, 2016). In an effort to reduce this gap in knowledge and gain an in-depth understanding into the causes of micromanagement within the Australian Public Sector, this research project addresses the following questions: • Which are the main variables or components derived from the internal aspects of the organizational culture that are correlated with micromanagement in the Australian Public Sector? • What is the nature of these relationships (positive or negative)? • What is the strength of these relationships? • What is their relative importance? • Which factors might alter the magnitude or nature of the relationships? With this in mind, the present research aims to propose a conceptual framework involving some potential antecedents, from organizational culture, to micromanagement in the Australian Public Sector and the factors or moderators that might affect the magnitude of the relationship between these antecedents and micromanagement in the sector. 2. Literature Review 2.1. Definition of the Concept Despite the notion of hard leadership characterized by the use of excessive control was first mentioned in 1960 by famed MIT Sloan professor Douglas McGregor (as cited in Thomas, 2006, p105), it was not until 1975 that the term ‘micromanagement’ was first coined by employees who felt overly controlled by their managers (as cited in White, 2010, p71). Since then, micromanagement often has had a negative connotation for being considered as a very dangerous style of management (Taylor, 2016). The notion of the term encompasses those situations where managers take away the decisions from the people that should take them - those with the skills and necessary information - and interfere in details supposedly best understood by subordinates down their line (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003). In consonance with this idea, many theories around good leadership are based on the observation from Theodore Roosevelt (as cite in Fry, 2014, p15) that states “the best executive is one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done and self- restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it”. Dr. Richard D. White, Dean of the Public Administration Institute at Louisiana State University, argues that in today’s world many managers don’t practice the aforementioned self-restraint, but instead needlessly over-manage, over-scrutinize, and over-frustrate employees (White, 2010). Micromanagement is all about the unnecessary, unwanted, counterproductive interference and disruption of people or things (Chambers, 2009). To identify its occurrence, companies must determine the exact moment when undesired influence, involvement, and interaction begin to subtract value from people and processes (Sikula & Sikula, 2007). Among the most accepted unintended negative consequences of micromanagement at the workplace it can be found low employee morale, high staff turnover, reduction of productivity and client dissatisfaction (Collins & Collins, 2002). Overall, micromanagement creates a stifling atmosphere and feelings of discontent among employees who believe that the manager does not trust them to do good work (Horne and Ivanov, 2015). 2.2. Antecedents to Micromanagement Since its appearance in the workplace vocabulary, many company’s owners, directors and management researches have attempted to explain the micromanagement concept and the antecedents and outcomes associated with it. Its role has expanded from a mere explanation of some managers’ boundaries to a key phenomenon with negative impacts that permeate the organization, its employees and its clients (Chambers, 2009). However, nowadays micromanagement still remains a current issue and under-studied topic in the scientific literature. In fact, no studies have empirically examined micromanagement (Lytle, 2018). Based on a review of the literature, micromanagement may be summarized as a function of the level of various components from individual personality, social characteristic and organizational culture. Even though, all these components might trigger micromanagement behaviors, this research was designed to provide specific insights for the Australian Public Sector which suggest that having a deep look of the precise organizational culture would be more revealing. In his book, the corporate culture survival guide, author Edgar H. Schein (2009), argues that leaders and managers of organizations (and societies) are creators, products, and victims of culture. Schein posits that culture is the hidden force that drives most of people’s behaviors both inside and outside organizations. Over the years, many researches from the field of organizational psychology have defined culture as the shared basic assumptions, values, and beliefs that characterize a group and are taught to newcomers as the proper way to think and feel (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). If culture is specifically analyzed at the organizational level it can be translate into external factors - mission, strategy, goals, structure, systems, processes and measurements - and internal factors – common language and concepts, group boundaries and identity, the nature of authority and relationships, and the allocation of rewards and status (Schein, 2009). While some researchers have found interesting relationships between the external factors of the organizational culture to micromanagement, in the pursuit of exploring the causes of micromanagement in the Australian Public Sector and provide meaningful and practical insights that help the sector to direct their mitigation strategies correctly, it makes sense to start analyzing the internal factors first. • Common language and concepts The most noticeable manifestations of culture are common language and common ways of thinking. Some organizations embed micromanagement behaviors as their normal process of doing business (Chambers, 2009). Typically, this behavioral standard is stablished at the top of the organization and cascades downward as it infects every level. If top leaders demonstrate micromanagement behaviors and reinforce them in others, micromanagement becomes both the norm and a mimicked style of choice. Managers, prospective managers and employees at the staff level all learn that the way to keep the peace is to be like the boss. Subordinates that are led by the principles of control, monitor and close reporting will sense these principles as the organization's core values. Any attempting to deviate that line would generate internal conflicts in the organizational environment (Tsai, 2011). A good manager who is micromanaged from above may feel forced to micromanage his own employees, thus creating a destructive ripple effect down through the organization as supervisors and employees fight to make the few decisions available (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2003). • Group boundaries and identity The social identity theory of leadership proposed by Michael A. Hogg (as cited in Hogg, van Knippenberg & Rast III, 2012) proposes that leadership arises out of, and is exercised through, social relationships. Leaders are not imposed on those they lead; they are effective because they both embody and influence the relationships of which they form a part and the shared identities, norms and beliefs that underpin the relationships. Every organization develops ways of identifying degrees of membership among its employees. When a new member of the group is accepted trust is developed (Voci, 2006). In the same line, Eblin Group (2017) states that micromanagement is really an issue of trust. Managers that do not trust their subordinates must control their every move. In the same sense, some management researches argue that trust is a key component of management efficiency because distrust between leaders and subordinates result in many procedural rules, increase in reporting requirements and delays in the decision making (Choudhury, 2008). Understanding the ways that the organizational culture promotes trust and shared identities among the different departments and workgroups will then, provide useful insights on how to prevent and eliminate micromanagement in the sector. • The nature of authority and relationships Organizations differ in the assumptions they make about authority relationships and the degree of intimacy that is considered appropriate among members. Some organizations are aggressively egalitarian and minimize the psychological distance between bosses and subordinates while other organizations maintain strict levels of hierarchy and high-power distance (Schein, 2009). Studies have demonstrated that in a high-power distance organizations and several levels of hierarchy, managers tend to micromanage, and even minor decisions go to the top. Thus, higher level managers are inundated with routine decisions (Khatri, 2009). Moving decision making to lower levels can reduce a manager’s workload while developing employees’ skills, knowledge, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment • Allocation of rewards and status Every organization develops a reward-and-status system. The most obvious form is pay increases and promotion up the ladder. But organizational cultures differ in the meanings attached to these and other kinds of rewards (Schein, 2009). Closely linked to rewards the efficiency is one of the preferred factors that lead to rewards in the companies. In the same sense, targets are the espoused guide to judgements about efficiency which might cause managers to direct all their available resources to achieving them. As a result, targets have in effect distorted the work subject to them while also ensuring that target attainment will have little or no relationship to the real performance of the service (Loveday, 2007). Measurement fixation occurs when there is an emphasis on meeting the target rather than supporting the spirit of the measure. The experience shows that in addition to generating desired improvements, performance measures can induce a range of unintended and dysfunctional consequences (Loveday, 2007). 3. Justification for significance and innovation,