)
)
)
“Two things we need to forget about from the industrial age: people are stupid and lazy, and the hierarchical organizational design that we inherited from slavery through the military into the factory system. The pyramid scheme needs to go away.”
– Chuck Blakeman
There’s no doubt that teamwork has many challenges, however most employees would agree that it’s far better than having a top-down pyramid structure that gives little freedom to participate in decision-making.
Participative management is the answer to micromanaging supervisors and bureaucratic bottlenecks. It’s a management style that puts teamwork first, allowing everyone to participate in decision-making. And while it may sound great on paper, it might do more harm than good if not executed properly.
What is participative management?
Participative management is a multi-faceted leadership structure that allows people to contribute to management decisions across multiple levels of an organization. That doesn’t mean it’s completely horizontal. Managers still exist, but they prioritize input and feedback from other employees and sometimes make the final call on decisions.
Central to participative management theory is the idea that top-down authority should be transferred to and shared with employees. It recognizes that employees are best equipped to recommend changes or courses of action due to their direct experience with various operations in the organization.
A simplified example could be a team of employees in a department that requires new computers or software. Theoretically, their hands-on experience can be leveraged to make the right decision in accordance with how they work and collaborate. In a participative management style, leaders consult with the staff and obtain input on the types of computers and what software and integrations would work best to improve productivity and efficiency.
Why participative management might fail (hint: it’s the manager)
For participative management to really work, it requires that management genuinely values employee input. It’s not about going through the motions as a virtue signal, and then taking another course of action that favors management interests.
This happens more often than not. Taking the office example above, it might be the case that management intends to outsource the entire computer and software replacement to a consulting firm in exchange for a lucrative contract with another company. Leaders might go through the motions of getting feedback from the employees but not act on it, preferring to work in their own interest instead.
In other cases, managers may send mixed signals where they invite people to give their opinion, but don’t act on it. This could be because many managers are used to traditional hierarchies and are unwilling to let go of total control. In those cases, it might be more transparent to ask for input while stating clearly that the decision will be made by upper-level management.
Participative management can lead to self management
For true participative management to work its magic, the leader needs to be confident that they can take their hands off the wheel and allow the team to drive the actions of the entire group. That way, the manager can empower the team to take responsibility and allow each member to demonstrate their expertise.
Not all teams are equal
There are varying levels of control a manager can have over a team in a participative management setting.
On the most superficial level, the manager is just going through the motions as a way to make everyone feel included.
One level up is where input is encouraged with the leader making it clear that management will make the final decision.
The next level up is where the leader submits to the group’s will after meetings are conducted and all opinions are factored into the decision.
The final level is where the leader works in the background and allows the team or individuals closest to the project or problem to manage it themselves.
“The traditional manager role involves a lot of broadcasting, sending and talking, ‘setting out the vision’, and giving instructions,” said Karin Tenelius, CEO of Tuff Leadership Training. “If you have a self-management team, you’re in the background. You’re facilitating, you’re asking questions, you’re silent, and you are not in the way of your team.”
Why participative management is a good model for the digital workplace
It could be said that participative management is tailored for the digital workplace because people work independently, often from a home office or coworking space. In a decentralized workplace, leaders may not have the overall vision or ability to oversee everything going on, and that requires giving employees the freedom to make critical decisions. Besides allowing people to save time from getting approvals, it reduces the bottleneck of getting the opinion and approval of the leader.
Take the example of Haier as explained by Chuck Blakeman. “Every one of those people, all 75,000 are capitalists, and the way they do it is they have 4,000 distributed decision-making teams of 10 to 15 people each that are entirely locally responsible for everything, including their budget, including their salaries, including their revenue.”
“That’s a great example of a distributed decision-making team model. They make 10% of all the washing machines, refrigerators, and stoves in the world.”
It may not be easy, but it could be the best model we’ve got
Participative management is not easy. Decisions can take a lot of time. Egos get involved. Managers might ignore opinions and personalities collide. But it does appear to be the best management style we have – especially in the digital workplace where trust and independence must coexist in a teamwork atmosphere.
“Two things we need to forget about from the industrial age: people are stupid and lazy, and the hierarchical organizational design that we inherited from slavery through the military into the factory system. The pyramid scheme needs to go away.”
– Chuck Blakeman
There’s no doubt that teamwork has many challenges, however most employees would agree that it’s far better than having a top-down pyramid structure that gives little freedom to participate in decision-making.
Participative management is the answer to micromanaging supervisors and bureaucratic bottlenecks. It’s a management style that puts teamwork first, allowing everyone to participate in decision-making. And while it may sound great on paper, it might do more harm than good if not executed properly.
What is participative management?
Participative management is a multi-faceted leadership structure that allows people to contribute to management decisions across multiple levels of an organization. That doesn’t mean it’s completely horizontal. Managers still exist, but they prioritize input and feedback from other employees and sometimes make the final call on decisions.
Central to participative management theory is the idea that top-down authority should be transferred to and shared with employees. It recognizes that employees are best equipped to recommend changes or courses of action due to their direct experience with various operations in the organization.
A simplified example could be a team of employees in a department that requires new computers or software. Theoretically, their hands-on experience can be leveraged to make the right decision in accordance with how they work and collaborate. In a participative management style, leaders consult with the staff and obtain input on the types of computers and what software and integrations would work best to improve productivity and efficiency.
Why participative management might fail (hint: it’s the manager)
For participative management to really work, it requires that management genuinely values employee input. It’s not about going through the motions as a virtue signal, and then taking another course of action that favors management interests.
This happens more often than not. Taking the office example above, it might be the case that management intends to outsource the entire computer and software replacement to a consulting firm in exchange for a lucrative contract with another company. Leaders might go through the motions of getting feedback from the employees but not act on it, preferring to work in their own interest instead.
In other cases, managers may send mixed signals where they invite people to give their opinion, but don’t act on it. This could be because many managers are used to traditional hierarchies and are unwilling to let go of total control. In those cases, it might be more transparent to ask for input while stating clearly that the decision will be made by upper-level management.
Participative management can lead to self management
For true participative management to work its magic, the leader needs to be confident that they can take their hands off the wheel and allow the team to drive the actions of the entire group. That way, the manager can empower the team to take responsibility and allow each member to demonstrate their expertise.
Not all teams are equal
There are varying levels of control a manager can have over a team in a participative management setting.
On the most superficial level, the manager is just going through the motions as a way to make everyone feel included.
One level up is where input is encouraged with the leader making it clear that management will make the final decision.
The next level up is where the leader submits to the group’s will after meetings are conducted and all opinions are factored into the decision.
The final level is where the leader works in the background and allows the team or individuals closest to the project or problem to manage it themselves.
“The traditional manager role involves a lot of broadcasting, sending and talking, ‘setting out the vision’, and giving instructions,” said Karin Tenelius, CEO of Tuff Leadership Training. “If you have a self-management team, you’re in the background. You’re facilitating, you’re asking questions, you’re silent, and you are not in the way of your team.”
Why participative management is a good model for the digital workplace
It could be said that participative management is tailored for the digital workplace because people work independently, often from a home office or coworking space. In a decentralized workplace, leaders may not have the overall vision or ability to oversee everything going on, and that requires giving employees the freedom to make critical decisions. Besides allowing people to save time from getting approvals, it reduces the bottleneck of getting the opinion and approval of the leader.
Take the example of Haier as explained by Chuck Blakeman. “Every one of those people, all 75,000 are capitalists, and the way they do it is they have 4,000 distributed decision-making teams of 10 to 15 people each that are entirely locally responsible for everything, including their budget, including their salaries, including their revenue.”
“That’s a great example of a distributed decision-making team model. They make 10% of all the washing machines, refrigerators, and stoves in the world.”
It may not be easy, but it could be the best model we’ve got
Participative management is not easy. Decisions can take a lot of time. Egos get involved. Managers might ignore opinions and personalities collide. But it does appear to be the best management style we have – especially in the digital workplace where trust and independence must coexist in a teamwork atmosphere.
