Participative Management in Organizational Change
I recently read an article in which the author said, "Senior
managers are becoming more accepting of participative management
and employee involvement because they (senior managers) are
becoming more humanistic." Nonsense!
Anybody who works with senior managers as a management
consultant quickly realizes that most managers enjoy the power
vested in their positions. Many of these managers are not
interested in sharing their power and decision-making authority.
Organizational Change (OC) consultants who argue for
participative management and employee involvement for humanistic
reasons will surely meet resistance.
Nido Qubein, in his audiotapes on marketing professional
services, said, "don't appeal to somebody's better nature; he or
she may not have one." OC consultants must help managers see how
they (the managers) will benefit from participative management
and employee involvement.
Participation and involvement of employees at every level of the
organization has become critical for organizations to develop
and maintain a competitive advantage. The continuously changing
demands for new and improved products and services require the
utilization of the mental skills and emotional commitment of
each organizational member. It has become simply impossible for
single managers to "micro-manage" the complex operations they
are responsible for. Gone are the days when companies hired and
managed "hands."
Employee empowerment (shared responsibility and authority) is
now a critical skill for management. Management must facilitate
the work processes and development of its employees. The change
in the role of managers from controllers to facilitators has
been difficult for many managers. This change has created
coaching opportunities for OC consultants.
$2,000 Per Day for a Short Walk
One of my earliest, and most valuable, lessons in the importance
of participative management and employee involvement came from
Rick. Rick is my mentor in consulting.
Rick told me about sitting in on a management meeting of one of
his manufacturing clients. The conversation of the management
members turned to production problems. They could not figure out
why their production output was dramatically below their
competitors'. Production numbers were far below the engineering
predictions for new equipment. They explained to Rick how they
had designed and redesigned the production process, with no
success.
After many years of consulting, Rick has a "nose" for this kind
of problem. Rick said, "Give me a week; I'll tell you how to fix
the problem." Since the management members saw Rick as a
consultant for "people problems," they appeared a bit surprised
and amused. But the frustrated and somewhat desperate CEO said,
"OK, give me a report by next Friday." I should point out that
Rick charges $300 per hour or $2,000 per day, plus expenses.
For the next four and a half days, Rick entered the client's
breakroom at 8 am, drank a cup of coffee, then walked down the
hallway to the production facility. He talked to the machine
operators individually and in groups. He talked to supervisors.
He even learned how to run the new machines (or at least got
familiar with the new machines). On Friday afternoon he put his
report on the CEO's desk.
The following week, Rick got a phone call from the CEO who sang
Rick's praises as a brilliant consultant. What did Rick's report
say? Rick's report simply told the managers what the employees
(the people doing the job) thought about how to improve the job.
When he told me this story, I stopped him and exclaimed, "Wait a
minute! You charged the company $10,000 to walk down the hallway
and get the answers from its own employees? The managers could
have done that themselves."
"I suggested that," Rick replied, "the managers ignored that as
a possibility."
Was Rick right to collect the $10,000? He ultimately saved the
company hundreds of thousands of dollars with the new processing
procedures. Arrogance cost that company $10,000! Employee
involvement would have saved it $10,000.