While all the interaction forms coexist, it can be difficult to notice for an eye that isn’t perceptive, keen or discerning. Thus, people have different interpretations of the occurrence of the same mix of interactions. This difference comes from personality, knowledge, personal experience and feeling. Hence, any attempt to force your opinion about what’s truthful and what’s not isn’t going to work. In fact, it’s much reasonable to understand and respect the perception of an interaction by another person.
For example, one party may feel that another party is invading them. This feeling usually develops an employee perceives another as taking up their role or ignoring their role. The invading party doesn’t perceive its actions as invasive; hence, it’s irrelevant for them to accept or refute the accusation. However, it’s important that the “invader” acknowledge diversity and its consequences. This feeling of invasion characterizes the invaded, not the invader.
Therefore, depending on the standpoint of either, the feeling’s subjective. This is especially so when a manager takes up the role of a subordinate. While a manager may perceive that as either quality interaction — interfaced — which involves dialogue, an employee perceives the opposite.
Does this mean that managers are out of touch with reality? This may not be the case, because the belief that their actions contribute toward synergy creation’s sincere. Nothing can be further from the truth of the saying, “The neighbors grass’s always greener”. From employee’s standpoint, what managers perceive as quality interactions is obscure, unclear, uncertain, invasive and one-way communication. If the management employs an organizational consultant for the purpose of settling “organizational justice” – who’s to blame and who’s not – meaningful synergy won’t develop.
Solutions to improve synergy depend on the perception of the degree to which forms of interactions. For example, a situation in which employees feel their managers are invasive 7 per cent of the time requires a different solution from one which the percentage is lower.
The Sacrifices of Synergy
Synergy’s difficult to achieve and maintain – it doesn’t occur overnight. You’ve to put in a lot in terms of time and effort. Synergy requires a high degree of quality of interactions, but that’s something managers or employees are not used to. Therefore, efforts to strengthen synergistic interactions and cooperation may be perceived as a threat.
And because synergy requires “flexing” or “recalibrating” boundaries, it would require people to be flexible where there isn’t – rigid organizational structures and cultures. It’d require employees to leave their egos and practices such as collective bargaining, aggressive competition, external ranking, etc.
Recalibration also mean that people have to be more confident, less fearful and more responsive to changes. For this to happen, people have to leave what causes ego or those practices – fear, ambition, wish, etc. However, that requires great sacrifice; hence, the costs are great. However, this cost’s nothing compared to the return on investment (ROI).
Synergy formation’s a time-consuming process, and managers have to create more time to flex boundaries and improve communication between organization’s members. Nothing’s truer than the claims of the statement, “There are so many meetings that there’s no time to work….” Synergy formation and improvement of interactions require full commitment and more attention to the process by the leadership.
And because synergy requires changing organizational structures and cultures, a feeling of discomfort develops. Change requires change of mind-set, attitude or thinking; many managers and employees don’t think synergistically. Furthermore, it’s not easy to let go of one’s ego for the purpose of boundary recalibration — ego serves as a safety and protective measure. Depending one’ personality and willingness to step outside one’s comfort zone, discomfort’s subjective. A sense of discomfort varies from one person to another.
Change’s a painful process; it requires you to cope with issues, which relate to your ego, power, loyalty, and organizational politics in relationships. It requires you to question your loyalty and commitment to your role, synergistic outputs, defined tasks, and actions that benefit your organization or unit.
The Bottom Line…
The perspective of managers on interactions differs from employees, and is usually positive. Where managers perceive interactions as noninvasive, and involves two-way communication pattern, and clear and certain boundaries, employees have an exact opposite viewpoint. Nonetheless, the degree to which people perceive interactions differs, and is subjective.
