Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Miscellaneous Participatory Management Participatory Management Participatory Management: summary of findings and annotated bibliography MSA 650 – Organization Theory: Strategy and Structure In scanning the recent literature on participatory management certain themes arise. Participatory management is a way to empower employees and create a more innovative bottom up structure for organizations. It is a movement toward decentralizing power. There are many suggestions on how this type of structure is to be realized. Most articles I reviewed have positive views of this structural method. Participative management is rooted in the human resource theoretical school. Using this type of model has a strong underpinning in utilizing people as a valuable resource. In fact many articles talk about the ability of peoples minds as the most important resource in today’s world. Most of the literature I reviewed seems to be asserting that this sharing of power within, and commitment to the product put out, is the only way to operate if organizations want to remain competitive. This organizational trend is definitely worker-friendly in its orientation and intended consequence. One common positive theme in the literature on participatory management is the increased communication and unlocking of ideas that occurs when employees are not intimidated by a strict hierarchical and authoritarian organizational arrangement (Collins, 1995; Morvec, Jphannessen, & Hjelmas, 1997). The improvement of morale and lessening of work related stressors are other common premises observed (Slate & Vogel, 1997). Renewed commitment and increased worker knowledge are also constructive outcomes (Pine, Warsh & Maluccio, 1998). Whereas most of the literature on this topical area is supportive and positive about participative management formats but there are pitfalls to avoid when implementing such a plan. Workers must be shown the way and new cultures must be developed in order for these types of systems to work (Goh, 1998; Moravec, Jphannesen, & Hjelmas 1997). Participatory management has many time and effort costs and these must be weighed against the amount of good such systems provide. There are some circumstances where participative management tools must be modified or not undertaken (Foster-Fishman & Keys, 1997). There are certain elements needed for participative management to be successful. Clear leadership and commitment from upper level leaders are crucial. Furthermore clear communication of specific goals and objectives are also essential ingredients (Goh, 1998). Political subcultures need to be considered and addressed so that efforts to gain input are not subverted (Collins, 1995). One compelling argument is the need for management to go out of their way to make sure the process of implementing employee involvement is perceived as a fair process. By engaging the rank and file for input, explaining why certain decisions are made, and providing new rules and roles that are expected this objective can be realized (Kim & Mauborgne, 1997). Of historical interest is an article by Bussel (1997) where the author provides the historical account of an early participative management attempt by William Hapgood to run his condensed soup company. Ahead of his time in the 1920’s Hapgood believed that the key to improving productivity and efficiency was to use a more humanistic and employee self-governance scheme. Although his efforts failed this attempt and contribution to new ways of thinking are important. The size of an organization also impacts on the effectiveness of the participative management design. Bryson (1999) used a nationally representative British workplace survey to assert that smaller companies benefit more from a direct communicative style. Individual recognition by payment for specific accomplishments is also more effective in firms with less than 200 employees. However Bryson also found that bottom-up decision making flows are not as effective in these smaller organizations. Two-way commitment between employees and management is another essential element of making empowerment techniques work. Both management and the rank-and-file must work together to make new power arrangements work. Management must be willing to give up some of it’s control over power and just as importantly the workers must be willing to accept such a role. Subcultures that have grown over time must be abandoned by those involved if it is vital to participative management to succeed. Those organizations characterized by a central office and separate field offices must make sure to pull their resources together and make sure the whole organization is on the same page (Foster-Fishman & Keys, 1997). Overall participative management seems to be a potentially powerful way to structure an organization especially in the new ‘knowledge economy’ we find ourselves in today. Structuring these types of organizations takes commitment and patience but the ideas and innovations as well as the potential to increase morale and productivity are worthwhile goals to try and attain using this design. Organizations that serve the public seem to be very well suited to this type of management structure (Pine, Warsh & Maluccio, 1998; Slate & Vogel, 1997). Bibliography: Word Count: 803
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.