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:
- What seems to be the problem in upland management that has resulted to continuous environmental degradation?
- 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?
- Given the different actors (with varying interests), why is participatory management very hard to institutionalize in the upland?
Just
my little thoughts…
References:
You made good points on Participative Management. Nice.
ReplyDelete