Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Participative management case studies
Participative management case studies
Participative management conclusion
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Participative management case studies
Participative management is a new approach in the work force today. Job enrichment, quality circles, and self-managing work teams are just some of the approaches. Companies share a common goal of increasing employee involvement. They want to raise the quality, performance, and productivity of their workers.
The questions that follow will be answered in this paper. What is participative management? What are the advantages of participative management? How does it raise quality, productivity, and performance? How can it be successfully started, implemented, and sustained? What are the results of experiments done in the work force?
Participative management is a process by which a company attempts to increase the
…show more content…
Once an employee decides not to become involved in such a program, he or she should not be singled out as refusing to be a team player and viewed in a negative manner. It is very important that the attitudes of these employees continue to be respected.
Step five: A participative management program should not be implemented across the entire organization all at once.
It should start in small departmental groups where there is a consensus that the employees are willing to get together to discuss mutual problems and come up with some solutions. It is very important that once ideas come forward from the groups, management should be ready to follow up and implement these ideas whenever possible. It is advisable to start with the easier problems first and then go to the more difficult problems later.
Step six: Management should not initiate a participative management program to try to save an organization from destruction as a last chance effort.
An employee involvement program should not be used as an alternative when other more serious changes need to be made first in the organization. These programs have been used in organizations for the above reasons and have failed because of their intent and because they were implemented too
…show more content…
In a hostile environment the first step in an employee involvement program is to have off-site meetings. Management members and union officials sit down with each other, have an opportunity to communicate together, and realize that they are not really enemies but that they are all employees of the same organization. Getting to know each other on a more personal basis is definitely important as an icebreaker. The important thing here is that both sides begin to share their thoughts on the state of the business. Establishing trust and initiating the necessary culture change in preparation for a participative management program takes time, usually years. It is certainly not advisable to start a program of this nature when employees do not trust each other. It will not work. The employees must be ready to accept such a program even after top management and the union officials are supportive of such a program. As management and the employees begin communicating and establishing trust among themselves, and adequate training is being provided on the participative style, management then needs to start asking employees for their opinions relative to their own jobs. As the process of employee involvement evolves, usually the next step is to start employee participation groups which usually center around a particular
In the past, decision making was a consensus among managers. They would debate for months on specific decisions that would impact each department. This type of participative leadership was what had worked in the past and driven
A participative leader consults with followers, obtains their ideas and opinions, and integrates their suggestions into the decisions about how the group or organization will proceed” (Northouse, 2016, p.118). As a participative leader, Vida often consults with her staff, obtains their ideas and opinions, and is open minded to their suggestions. For example letting us have flexible hours, because most of us were taking other classes, getting our ideas for recording sessions, and even choosing what snacks we wanted to have available at the
RL Wolfe decided to try the SHRM through self-driven teams. In the past, the company had highly unionized stru...
When employees have a say in their roles in the workplace they are happier, healthier and more productive. People are social creatures and it is not surprising that working in a team environment can increase productivity, reduce boredom and complacency, while increasing respect and loyalty towards employers.
The team jointly identifies plans, procedures, goals, vision, and develops strategies to achieve the leader’s objectives. The leader, leads by acting as a sort of facilitator: a guiding hand. Of course the leader does task delegation and team formation. But in general, a participatory leader involves as many stakeholders as possible when making decisions. This is important because most organizations make decisions with little input from the regular employees: decisions are top down and hierarchical (Hogan & Hogan, 1994). In developing my personal style of leadership, I prefer a more down-up or grass-roots grown decision making. I think the people at the bottom of any organization and the ones at the front counter understand what needs to be done or solved in any organization. Making organizational culture change must include the regular subordinate staff to realize the future vision of the organization. Participatory leadership aspires to involve a wide participation in decision making (Yukl,
If the inputs are seen as used, employees are likely to feel as though they had a positive impact; if the inputs are consistently rejected, employees are likely to feel that their time has been wasted. Participative leaders clearly decentralize authority. Participative decisions are not unilateral, as with the autocrat, because they use
Participative (Democratic) leadership is, as its name implies, a participation of the group. The participants all collaborate in the decisions the group must make. “Researchers have found that this learning style is usually one of the most effective and lead to higher productivity, better contributions from the group members, and increased moral.”
Some of the things that companies could do to improve job satisfaction for example, would be to identify when an employee is bored on the job, address it, obtain feedback from the employee for ideas to make their job more interesting and challenging. This would allow a leader to assist this individual in designing different ways to perform duties or depending on individual’s future career goals and performance level, may need more responsibility or promotion in order for the employee to maintain job satisfaction and retention with t...
COGHLAN, D (1994) ‘Managing organizational change through groups and teams,’ Leadership and Organization Development Journal 15(2): 18-23
Team management should be the ultimate goal. The employee feels their contributions matter and there is genuine effort to increase the productivity (Blake & Mouton, 1982).
Organizations use teamwork because it increases productivity. This concept was used in corporations as early as the 1920s, but it has become increasingly important in recent years as employ...
The article “Participatory management. Methods to increase staff output in organizational decision making” was written by Phil Bartle, PhD. The epigraph of the article is identical to its central point: “Management is far too important to be left only to managers”. The author emphasizes the importance of staff participation in management and creates a guideline to make the business more participatory.
So what does this definition mean to me? First, it means that leaders who embrace a participative leadership style, values and involves their entire team. Second, it means leaders work closely with their team members, focusing on building relationships and rapport. Lastly, it means that leaders allow their team to assist in the decision making process, accepting their input and allowing them to share their ideas. As a leader, I would incorporate this style of leadership when leading project teams because it creates a level of trust between a leader and its members. In addition, this leadership style creates motivation and empowerment. When team member’s skills are acknowledged and their opinions are being valued, they see how their contributions aid in completing the final project goal and take ownership. This type of leadership also provides higher levels of motivation and better strategies and solutions because a variety of people contribute with different perspectives and ideas. Although the team leader is required to give up some control, I believe that the motivational benefits of doing so are greater than with other leadership styles. According to Lam, Xu & Chan (2015), “many practicing managers acknowledge the potential motivational benefits of participative management practice, and value its performance implications” (p. 836). I would
Employee empowerment can be described as giving employees' accountability and ability to make choices about their work without managerial authorization. Good managers are expected to assist employees to improve job success by supporting, training, leading and giving advice. Employee empowerment can increase employees' motivation, job satisfaction, and loyalty to their companies. The power that managers comprise should now be shared with employees with confidence, assertion, inspiration, and support. Work decisions and the ability to control an individual’s amount of work are now being relied upon at lower-level management positions (Fragoso, 1999). Groups of empowered employees with little or no supervision are now being formed and these groups are being called self-managed teams. These groups can now solve work problems, make choices on schedules and operations, learn to do other employees’ jobs, and are held accountable for the quality of their finished products.
Participative leaders or better known as democratic leaders include team members and others, but making the final decision is up to the participative leader. Participative leaders build confidence and knowledge within team members because their inputs matter within decision making. It helps team members think their opinions help with decisions. If there is change that needs to be implemented a participative leader helps team members understand the change in positive way. I would definitely consider myself a participative leader because I love gathering as many opinions from people just in case I don’t see the situation from another point. It helps me put everything in a good perspective.