Participative Management Sample Essay

1. Introduction
a. Background of survey:
A modern advanced concern does non maintain its employees in the dark about critical determinations impacting them. It trusts them and involves them in determination devising at all degrees. “Command and control” is no longer an equal theoretical account. A more unfastened and collaborative model will work the endowments of all employees ( Hewitt. 2002 ) . Employees must be involved if they are to be understood the demand for creativeness and if they are to be committed to altering their behaviour at work. in new and improved ways ( Singh. 2009 ; Kingir and Mesci. 2010 ) . Employee engagement in decision-making serves to make a sense of belonging among the workers every bit good as a congenial environment in which both the direction and the workers voluntarily contribute to healthy industrial dealingss ( Noah. 2008 ) . In order to increase the workers committedness and humanise the workplace with the purpose of bettering work public presentation and good citizenship behaviour. directors need to allow a high grade of employee engagement ( Cohen et Al. . 1997 ) .

B. Definition:
Participative Management refers to as an unfastened signifier of direction where employees are actively involved in organization’s decision-making procedure. The directors who understand the importance to human mind and seek a strong relationship with their employees apply the construct. They understand that the employees are the facilitators who deal straight with the clients and fulfill their demands. To crush the competition in market and to remain in front of the competition. this signifier of direction has been adopted by many organisations. They welcome the advanced thoughts. constructs and ideas from the employees and affect them in decision-making procedure.

Participative Management can besides be termed as ‘Industrial Democracy’ . ‘Co-determination’ . ‘Employee Involvement’ every bit good as ‘Participative Decision Making’ . The construct of employee engagement in organization’s determination devising is non new. However. the thought couldn’t addition that much popularity among organisations. Surveies have shown that merely 3-5 per centum of organisations have really implemented this construct in their day-to-day operations. Though the theory of participative direction is every bit old as the establishment of employees and employers. Still it is non applied in a big proportion of organisations.

c. Rationale of Study:
Now a twenty-four hours. engagement is really of import for an organisation. Who will take part and who won’t participate is the most of import determination to take. Though employee engagement is extremely encouraged in modern theories. there ever should be some boundary. There is ever some affair in which subsidiaries should non interfere.

d. Objective of the survey:
Therefore. the engagement of workers in decision-making is considered as a tool for bring oning motive in the workers taking to positive work attitude and high productiveness ( Noah. 2009 ) . However. research workers may be disbelieving about the value and relevancy of employee engagement in determination devising to tauten public presentation. It is in position of this that the survey examines the followers: 1. Find the characteristics of organisational engagement.

2. Find the benefits of Organizational engagement.
3. Find the restrictions of Organizational engagement.

e. Restrictions of Survey:
This survey has non done by a professional research worker. So there can be some ambiguity in the survey. Since this survey is created chiefly through observation and secondary information. there may besides miss of contemplation of the exact scenario. a. Problem statement:

Organizational engagement makes it easy for the organisation to accomplish the organisational end.

2. Research methodological analysis

a. Research methodological analysis and informations aggregation:
This survey is made chiefly on the footing of other researcher’s work and through observation in the organisation I work in.

B. Computer package used:
1. MAC office 2008.
2. Snagit 2 editor.

3. Findingss and analysis

a. Organizational engagement:
Participative direction is the procedure whereby employees are involved in determination devising procedures. instead than merely moving on orders. Employee engagement is portion of a procedure of authorization in the workplace. Employee engagement is in portion a response to the quality motion within organisations. Individual employees are encouraged to take duty for quality in footings of transporting out activities. which meet the demands of their clients. The internal client is person within the organisation that receives the ‘product of service’ provided by his or her ‘supplier’ within the organisation. External clients are purchasers and users outside of the organisation. Employee engagement is besides portion of the move towards human resource development in modern organisations. Employees are trusted to do determinations for themselves and the organisation.

This is a cardinal motivational tool. Participative directors consult with their employees. conveying them in on jobs and determinations so that they work together as squad. The directors are non tyrants. but they still retain ultimate duty for the operation of their units. but they have learned to portion runing duty with those who perform the work. The consequences are that. employees feel a sense of involvement in-group ends. It follows that engagement is the mental and emotional engagement of people in-group state of affairss that encourages them to lend to group ends and portion duty for them. There are three of import thoughts of this definition – engagement. part and duty. The thought behind employee engagement at every phase of decision-making is perfectly consecutive.

Open and honest communicating ever produces good consequences both for organisation every bit good as workers. Freedom and transparence in company’s operations take it to the following degree and strengthens the footing of the organisation. On the other manus. there are several companies that straightway regulation out the possibility of participative decision-making procedure. Harmonizing to them. employees misuse their freedom of look and engagement in decision-making as it provides higher position to employees and empowers them. There are many companies who have embraced this peculiar manner of direction and are now acquiring positive consequences. Toyota is the best illustration. The company has been following suggestion strategies and employee engagement processs for over a decennary now. The direction receives about 2. 000. 000 suggestions and thoughts every twelvemonth ; and the company is implementing about 95 per centum of these thoughts. Who is non cognizant of Toyota’s success rate? Around five 1000 betterments per twelvemonth have made Toyota one of the fastest turning organisations globally. The demand is to develop and implement a comprehensive company policy and everything plants good.

British Airways is another great illustration of participatory direction. During economic retrenchment. employees’ suggestions helped them cut one-year cost of their operations by 4. 5 million lbs. This is merely incredible. The company would hold suffered from immense losingss. had it non adopted employees’ suggestions. It is right to some extent that employees can misapply industrial democracy but with a proper direction of HR maps. this job can be solved and the operations of organisation can be taken to the following degree.

Satyam is another great illustration. It has been implementing company-wide suggestion strategy. ‘The Idea Junction’ . since 2001. A real-time web-based portal is present in Intranet that can be accessed by all its employees all across the Earth to back up the full life rhythm of an thought right from its coevals till its execution. The chief thought behind following this direction manner was to make values and convey sense of belongingness in the employees through thoughts. suggestions and complains. The whole process is backed by a strong and comprehensive wages policy that encourages employees to execute better each clip. Employee engagement at each degree of decision-making procedure is non at all harmful if managed expeditiously. The whole procedure can be good coordinated and controlled by the sincere and honest attempts of human resource directors.

Employee engagement is besides referred to as employee engagement ( EI ) . Engagement means meaningful engagement instead than mere muscular activity. A individual who participates is ego – involved alternatively of simply task – involved. Some directors mistake undertaking engagement for true engagement. They go through the gestures of engagement. but nil more. They hold meetings to inquire sentiments and so on. but all the clip it is absolutely clear to employees that their director is an bossy foreman who wants no thoughts. These empty managerial actions constitute pseudo engagement. with the consequence that employees fail to go ego – involved. Examples of employee engagement include:

I. Undertaking squads or quality circles in which employees work on undertakings or undertakings with considerable duty being delegated to the squad.

two. Suggestion schemes – where employees are given channels whereby they can propose new thoughts to directors within the organisation. Often they will have wagess for doing appropriate suggestions.

three. Consultation exercisings and meetings whereby employees are encouraged to portion thoughts.

four. Deputation of duty within the organisation. In modern organization’s land degree employees have to be given considerable duty because they are covering with clients on a daily footing frequently in fresh state of affairss. Such employees need to be trusted to do determinations for them.

v. Multi-channel determination devising procedures. In such state of affairss determinations are non merely made in a downward way. they besides result from communications upward. sideways. and in many other waies within the organisation. Motivation to Lend:

A 2nd construct in engagement is to actuate people to lend. They are empowered to let go of their ain resources of enterprise and creativeness toward the aims of the organisation. In this manner engagement differs from consent. The pattern of consent uses merely the creativeness of the directors. who brings thoughts to the group for the member’s consent. The consent do non lend. they simply approve. Engagement is more than acquiring consent for something that has already been decided. Its great value is that taps the creativeness of all employees. Participation particularly improves motive by assisting employees understand and clear up their waies toward ends. Harmonizing to the way – end theoretical account of leading. the improved apprehension of way – end relationships produces a heightened sense of duty for end attainment. The consequence is improved motive. Acceptance of duty:

Finally. engagement encourages people to accept duty in their group activities. It is a societal procedure by which people become self – involved in an organisation and want to see if work successfully. When they talk about their organisation. they began to state ‘we’ non ‘they’ . When they see a occupation job. it is ‘ours’ non ‘theirs’ . Participation helps them go good organisational citizens instead than non – responsible. machine – like performing artists. As persons begin to accept duty for group activities. they see in it a manner to make what they want to make. that is. to acquire a occupation done for which they feel responsible. This thought of acquiring the group to desire teamwork is a cardinal measure in developing it into a successful work unit. When people want to make something. they will happen a manner. Under these conditions employees see directors as supportive subscribers to the squad. Employees are ready to work actively with directors instead than reactively against them.

B. Why Engagement is popular?
Directors have for old ages recognized assorted benefits of engagement. but Roethkisberger. Coch. Gallic and others foremost demonstrated these benefits by experimentation in authoritative surveies in industry. Conducted by adept societal scientists under controlled conditions. these experiments were utile in pulling attending to the possible value of engagement. Their corporate consequences suggested the general proposition that. particularly in the debut of alterations. engagement tends to better public presentation and occupation satisfaction. Later research in organisations has repeatedly has supported this proposition. as suggested by the writers of comprehensive reappraisal: engagement can hold statistically important effects on public presentation and satisfaction.

There are grounds for the enhanced involvement in engagement. U. S concerns are fighting to vie in the planetary market place. Consequently. they are demoing a acute involvement in any managerial patterns expedite these ends by puting more duty at lower degrees of the organisation and by rushing up the blessing procedure. Participative pattern may besides supply chances earlier to minority workers need non wait until making higher organisational degrees before being allowed to lend meaningfully.

Engagement besides seems to assist fulfill the rousing employee demand for significance and fulfilment at work. This research for sprit. or harmoniousness among all aspects of life as guided by a higher power. has challenged organisations such as Tom’s of Maine. Boeing. Lotus Development. and Medtronic to seek for ways to reconstruct a ‘soul’ to their workplaces. Meaningful engagement can assist those demands.

Other grounds for the popular usage of participative patterns are notable. The educational degree of the work force frequently provides workers with alone capacities that can be made that engagement is an ethical jussive mood for directors. This position rests on the decision that extremely no participative occupations cause both psychological and physical injury to employees in the long tally. As a consequence of these driving forces. directors need to make participative conditions that will let interested employees to see feeling of authorization in their work.

Figure 1: Forces impacting the greater usage of engagement

c. Benefits of Engagement:
In assorted types of organisations under different operative conditions. engagement has contributed to a assortment of benefits. Some of these are direct ; others are less touchable. Participation typically brings end product and better quality of end product. In certain types of operations the quality betterment entirely is worth the clip invested in engagement. Employees frequently make suggestions for both quality and measure betterments. Although non all the thoughts are utile. there are adequate valuable 1s to bring forth echt long-term betterments. Participation tends to better motive because employees feel to a greater extent recognized and involved in the state of affairs. Their self-esteem. occupation satisfaction. and cooperation with direction besides may better. The consequences frequently are cut downing struggle and emphasis. more commitment to ends. and better credence of alteration. Employee turnover and absences may be reduced because employees feel that they have a better topographic point to work. The act of engagement is itself establishes better communicating as people discuss work jobs. Management tends to supply workers with increased information about the organization’s fundss and operations. and this sharing of information allows employees to do better quality suggestions.

There is an premise held by many bookmans and directors that if employees are adequately informed about affairs refering them and are afforded the chance to do determinations relevant to their work. so there will be benefits for both the organisation and the person ( Shadur et al. . 1999 ) . Hence. the following are the benefits of employee engagement in decision-making: 1. It increases employee’s morale or occupation satisfaction and enhances productive efficiency ( Chang & A ; Lorenzi. 1983 ) .

2. It provides employees the chance to utilize their private information. which can take to better determinations for the organisation ( Williamson. 2008 ) . 3. As a consequence of the incorporation of the thoughts and information from employees. organisational flexibleness. merchandise quality. and productiveness may better ( Preuss & A ; Lautsch. 2002 ) . 4. It contributes to greater trust and a sense of control on the portion of the employees ( Chang & A ; Lorenzi. 1983 ) . 5. Through employee engagement. resources required to supervise employee conformity ( e. g. . supervising and work regulations ) can be minimized. hence cut downing costs ( Arthur. 1994 ; Spreitzer & A ; Mishra. 1999 ) . 6. When employees are given the chances of lending their thoughts and suggestions in decision-making. increased firms’ public presentation may ensue
since deep employee engagement in decision-making maximizes point of views and a diverseness of positions ( Kemelgor. 2002 ) .

On his portion. Sashkin ( 1976 ) identifies four matching results of employee’s engagement or engagement in decision-making: 1. Quality Improvement. Better information flow and usage can clear up tasks ends. and convey approximately qualitatively better determinations. 2. Addition in employees’ committedness and credence of determinations through a sense of “ownership” ( holding been involved in decision-making ) . This result increases the likeliness that ends will be efficaciously implemented. 3. Support of the participative attack and continuation of its effects overtime. due to larning through behavioural pattern ; this represents the behavioural procedure consequence. 4. Increase adaptative capacity of the organisation. Development of shared norms and values may ensue into more effectual usage of inter-dependency dealingss among organisation members. through an organisational procedure based on coaction. as opposed to win-lose struggle.

However. any possible benefits from greater employee engagement in determination devising require that employee involvement be aligned with firm’s involvements ( Ogden. 1992 ; Spreitzer & A ; Mishra. 1999 ) . Individual eventuality factors – which support or impede participative decision-making ; have besides been identified by Sashkin ( 1976 ) : 1. Participative decision-making is appropriate when sets of picks are clear. persons show desire for greater desire for occupation engagements. and several persons can be given similar pick sets ( that is. attempt in developing picks does non render such a program economically impractical ) . This would ever be true when engineering is low. 2. Participative decision-making may be utile in developing greater single occupation duty. 3. Participative attack to decision-making is inappropriate when picks are complex. hard to specify. and vary in no little manner ; when undertaking mutuality is really high ; when environmental alteration is rapid.

d. The Participative Procedure:
A simple theoretical account of the participative procedure is shown in figure 2. It indicates that in many state of affairss participative plans result in mental and emotional engagement that produces by and large favourable results for both the employees and the organisation. Participating employees are by and large more satisfied with their work and their ego – efficiency rises as a consequence of their new authorization.

Figure 2: The participative procedure
e. Impact of engagement on managerial power:
In organisational behaviour. power is defined as the ability to acquire person to make something you want done or the ability to do things go on in the manner you want them to. The kernel of power is control over the behaviour of others. Directors derive power from both organisational and single beginnings. And through engagement. a director delegates this power to his subsidiaries.

It is a sharing procedure between the director and his subsidiaries and built upon the leader – member exchange theoretical account of leading. Harmonizing to this theoretical account. the directors and their followings develop a slightly mutual relationship. with the leader selectively deputing. informing. confer withing. mentoring. praising or honoring each employee. The subsidiaries have to offer trueness. higher productiveness and regard to the directors.

Now the directors are non free from the fright of losing power by sharing it with others. This is a natural position of directors as accountants. but it is non justifiable one because participative directors frequently remain the concluding authorization. The proper authorization – that enables the employees to use the authorization and makes them more involved in the organisation.

f. Prerequisites of engagement:
The proper execution of engagement wholly depends on how good the factors are judged and certain requirements are met. The major requirements are as follows: 1. Adequate clip to take part.

2. Potential benefits greater than costs.
3. Relevance to employee involvements.
4. Adequate employee abilities to cover with the topics.
5. Common ability to pass on.
6. No feeling of menace to either party.
7. Restriction to the countries of occupation freedom.

Engagement for make up one’s minding a class of action in an organisation can take p [ lacing merely within the group’s country of occupation freedom. Some grade of limitation on groups and persons is required in order to keep integrity for the whole.

Within the country of occupation freedom. engagement exists along a continuum. An decision maker may happen it necessary to restrict the engagement used with one employee while confer withing freely with another. Since a consistent attack provides employees with a predictable environment. each decision maker bit by bit becomes identified with some general manner of engagement as a usual pattern. g. Manager’s responsibilities towards engagement:

The general responsibilities of a director toward engagement are following: 1. Let works advancement from engagement on simple issues to more complex 1s. 2. Supply employees with relevant preparation so that they understand broader organisational issues and fiscal statements. 3. Communicate in progress their countries of decisional freedom and the associated boundaries. 4. If the workers do non wish to take part they should non be forced to make so. 5. Supply reding for supervisors so that they will cognize how to manage power sharing. 6. Set realistic ends for the early phases of any participative procedure. 7. Keep the guiding doctrine behind engagement steadfastly in head at all times. 8. Never effort to pull strings a determination under the pretense of engagement. 9. Keep a delicate balance between over engagement and under engagement. 10. Monitor employee perceptual experiences of the degree of authorization experienced.

h. Limitations of engagement:

The possible restrictions of engagement are following:
1. Lack of trust on the take parting subsidiaries may neglect the whole procedure. 2. Sometimes employees may bury their boundaries of engagement. 3. There may lift a batch of incorrect inputs.

4. Over pattern of authorization.
5. Manager’s loss of control over subsidiaries.
6. Sometimes it becomes tough for the director to measure his subsidiaries. 7. Significant sum of preparation needed.
8. Manager can overlook a superb input because of batch of other dull inputs. 9. Participative subsidiaries may affect in personal struggle. 10. Inclination of oiling foremans may originate.

I. Engagement in my organisation:
I work in ‘Playdom Bangladesh Private Limited’ . which is a subdivision of ‘Playdom Inc. ’ ‘Playdom Inc. ’ is a company of Disney Interactive. Formally known as Disney Interactive Media Group ( DIMG ) . Organizations under ‘Disney Interactive’ ever give engagement a top precedence. In every decision-making. the organisation expects its employees to take part. From office ornament to new enlisting. squad edifice or even in establishing new merchandise. employee engagement is extremely encouraged.

Participative direction in ‘Playdom Bangladesh Private Limited’ : 1. Self-managed work squads: All the squads are self-managed. All the members of a squad participate in puting the end of the squad. Along with puting the end. squad members besides set the deadline of the undertaking. 2. Self-responsible squad members: Each squad member is responsible for his ain work. No 1 from the higher direction pushes the employees for their work. The lone end of the squad members is to establish the merchandise within the jutting clip ; and they work hard to run into the deadline. 3. Non-hierarchical direction: Playdom does non believe the construct of foreman.

There are undertaking directors for each undertaking. but they ever give a feel to other squad members that he is non the foreman ; he’s merely one of them. 4. Non-hierarchical work topographic point: The workspace of Playdom is merely a wide-open infinite. There is no particular room or topographic point for the higher direction. Everybody portions the same workspace. 5. Performance Appraisal: Merely the higher authorization does non do Performance assessment. Every squad member evaluates the public presentation of other members of the squad. Even the subsidiaries evaluate the public presentation of their superior. 6. Employee suggestions: Suggestions from employees are extremely appreciated in Playdom. Employees can give suggestions for the improvement of the undertakings and besides in any managerial or organisational determinations as good.

4. Decisions and Suggestions

Many employees want to go more sceptered. If they are allowed to play a meaningful function in the organisation. feelings of ego – regard will increase and they will lend their abilities and attempts to assist the organisation win. Participation is an of import vehicle for authorising employees. Engagement is the mental and emotional engagement of people in-group state of affairss that encourages them to lend to group ends and portion duty for them. Some directors have trouble seting to their new functions in high – engagement system. They may still cleaving to theory X beliefs and premises. they may fear losing their former position as cardinal determination shaper. or they may be concerned that they will hold less power and control than old. To a big grade. there are perceptual beginnings of opposition but still really existent factors. Even more powerful forces moving against the success of participative plans are an organization’s failure to decently fix either their directors or employees for new functions in an sceptered environment. A significant investing in preparation is frequently required. and cardinal issues needed to be addressed.

Carefully designed pilot plan frequently help pave the manner to subsequently success. or else jobs encountered in early phases may undermine the larger attempt. One of the greatest hindrances to success is the deficiency of support for or even opposition to participative plans by top direction. In malice of its legion restrictions. engagement by and large has achieved significant success. It is non the reply to all organisation jobs. but experience does demo its general utility. The consequence clearly shows that engagement has wide systems effects that favourably influence a assortment of organisational end products. The benefits may non look instantly. nevertheless. When one company adopted participative direction. it predicted it would take ten old ages to accomplish the full consequence. Once the organization’s civilization is changed. so the system as a whole becomes more effectual. The demand of employees to derive more power and utilize their endowments is neither a inactive illusion nor a competitory advantage to be ignored. It appears to be rooted profoundly in the civilization to free people around the universe. and it is likely a basic thrust in human being. Engagement has been so successful in pattern that it has become widely accepted in more advanced states and will go an of import tool in the advancement of developing states.

5. Mentions

1. Frank Heller. Eugen Pusic. George Strauss and Bernhard Wilpert. Organizational Participation. Myth and Reality. 2. Christopher R. Forrest. L. L. Cummings. and Alton C. Johnson. Organizational Engagement: A Critique and Model. University of Wisconsin – Madison. 3. Lewis. P. . Goodman S. . Fandt P. . Management. Challenges in the twenty-first century. South – western College Publishing. SU. 2001. 4. John W. . Newstrom and Keith Davis. Organizational behaviour: human behaviour at work. 11th edition. Tata McGraw – hill Publishers. 2002. 5. World Wide Web. wikipedia. org