Thursday, June 5, 2014

Participatory Management


PARTICIPATORY MANAGEMENT
by Antonio C. Antonio
November 29, 2013

The participatory management approach could be considered a management tool that aims to involve all employees of a business enterprise in the decision-making process.  Although the ultimate decision-makers are still the senior management officers, inputs from the rank and file and middle management officers are gathered and considered prior to making major policy, administrative and operations decisions.  More often than not, these inputs form the basis for such decisions.  Participatory management aims to empower employees on issues and concerns since they (being members of the organization) are the primary beneficiaries of such decisions. 

For example:  In the early 1990s, Tarlac Enterprises, Inc. (TEI), the provider of electricity in Tarlac City, was having a problem with “system losses” from the many illegal connections (jumpers) all over the city.  One of the initial reactions of the senior management staff was to cut costs by down-sizing the organization to more profitable levels.  But before any decision was actually made, the problem was not only communicated to the entire organization but management asked everyone to suggest ways and means to stop, if not minimize, systems losses.  One lineman came up with the idea of transferring all electric meters from the houses or buildings to the electric posts where illegal electric wire-taps could easily be detected.  The TEI board liked the idea and approved the line man’s suggestion.  After the electric meter relocation plan was completed, TEI experienced very negligible systems losses.  The employees kept their jobs and the company even expanded its operations after that.  This is an example how participatory management works.

The principle of participatory management was first perfected in business enterprises.  It recognizes the importance of human intellect.  It also seeks to foster a better working environment between management and the employees.  From a purely business organization aspect, participatory management implies the progressive development of self-management on the part of each and every member of the business organization.  This entails: (a) The institutionalization of mechanisms, means, tools and channels to encourage participation; (b) A well-informed membership wherein information known to the upper echelon are also known among the rank and file; (c) The application of systematic consultation from bottom to top and top to bottom as well; (d) The active involvement of all members in employee training, development and retention; and, (e) The development of a promotions system based purely on merits. 

There are terms that are commonly used to describe participatory management, such as: (1) Participative Decision Making; (2) Employee Involvement; (3) Co-Determination; and, (4) Industrial Democracy.  There are no set rules of procedures in participatory management.  If, at all there are, they evolve and change with the challenges and competition of business organizations.  Oftentimes, we hear the phrase “Dog eat dog” to paraphrase the competitive nature of organizational structures… the internal politics among employees and workers.   It is for this reason why many business organizations opt to use the participatory management approach.

Participatory management has the following advantages:  (a) It keeps the morale in the entire business organization at high levels; (b) It allows its members to engage in intellectual exercises and therefore has a collection of a wide array of ideas; (c) It creates a good communications network among its members; (d) It provides a friendly working atmosphere; and, (d) It reduces incidents of conflict.  There are disadvantages too… such as: (a) It is often a circuitous process and very time-consuming; (b) It often steps on sensitive toes --- the sensitivities of people --- especially in cases when their ideas are not given due course over the ideas of others; (c) It develops perceptions of deceit especially when the popular ideas (as against good ideas) are not are not given regard and attention.  Participatory management becomes the best tool in the following situations: (a) When new ideas are being sought; (b) When conflicts among members is being resolved; (c) When there is a major change in policy direction; (d) When in meetings, caucuses, conferences, etc.; and, (e) Elections.

The participatory management approach can also be realized in upland management.  But because of the numerous actors and peculiarities in the upland it becomes a more complex task... not like a business enterprise (in the mold of TEI) where the command and control structure is strong and well placed.

There are two environments in a SWOT analysis; internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external (opportunities and threats).  Many management practitioners find their internal environments easier to manage but have a lot of discomfort dealing with their external environments simply because they exercise less command and control.  This is the basic difference that makes the participatory management approach worrisome in the uplands especially since there are many interest groups and personalities involved.  Inter-personal communications skill has a lot to do with a manager’s success or failure… especially in the uplands where there are several actors playing lead roles.

The following are the actors in upland governance… government (the regulator and owner), the private sector (the investor) and civil society (the overseer).  It should be noted that uplands are considered public lands which makes government, more often than not, the initiator of upland development plans and programs and the chief regulatory actor too.  Another actor, the upland dwellers, plays a central role considering that he is the focal point for all these government-initiated activities, plans and programs.  Also playing cameo, but not necessarily less important roles, would be the illegal settlers, the insurgents/military, the lawless elements and other interest groups.  With all these personalities in the upland backdrop, all wanting control, it is not hard to imagine the complexity of the situation.  And this is simply a nightmare for management practitioners.

Many plans and programs of government in the upland areas are laudable.  Problems arise, however, due to the following reasons (to mention a few): (1) Lack of funds to pursue the project to its success stage; (2) Lack of commitment from the actors; (3) Lack of genuine concern from the actors; (4) Lack of motivation from the actors; (5) Too much selfish interest from the actors; (6) Lack of feedback/monitoring and evaluation mechanisms; (7) Lack of oversight mechanism; (8) Graft and corruption; (9) Incompetence on the part of the actors; and, (10) Lack of knowledge.

There are two key words in the upland management environment or in management in general:  The “manager” and “leadership”.  “Manager”, in this case, refers to the knowledge, technologies and academic training skill sets of a manager on the rudiments of management as a science.  On the other hand, “leadership” refers to communications and social skill sets of a manager that makes him a leader.  It is said (although perhaps still debatable) that to successfully practice the participatory management approach especially in the upland, one must be tooled with both skill sets… as a technically proficient manager and a people-person-sensitive leader.  It is also said that books and schools can make managers but only experience can make leaders.  You and I could agree that quality education can make a good manager but, unfortunately, I really don’t know what sort of situation could make one a leader… all I know is if one or both manager and/or leader skill set/s is/are absent, it is a situation wherein we expect a fish to climb a pole.

Points to Ponder:
  1. What seems to be the problem in upland management that has resulted to continuous environmental degradation?
  2. With too many actors in the upland, how does a manager/leader harmonize the different and diverse interests of these actors and protect the interest of the upland communities?
  3. Given the different actors (with varying interests), why is participatory management very hard to institutionalize in the upland?

Just my little thoughts…

References:




1 comment: