Preview Extract
Chapter 8 Empowerment and Participation Suggested Answers to Discussion Questions 1. Explain what empowerment means to you. Give an illustration of a time when you truly felt empowered. Students’ answers may vary. Empowerment definitions should revolve around the notion that barriers to self-efficacy have to be removed so that the individual can feel capable to contribute and perform well. Examples may be a time when a professor trusted a student well enough to allow that person to do his or her own decision making, or an instance in which the individual felt especially competent in doing a term paper or other project in college study. Empowerment, to me, is the process of enabling individuals or teams to take ownership of their work, make decisions, and take actions that contribute to the overall goals of the organization. It involves providing the necessary resources, information, and support to individuals so they can effectively carry out their responsibilities and make meaningful contributions. An illustration of a time when I truly felt empowered was when I was part of a project team tasked with improving a customer service process. Our manager gave us the freedom to analyze the existing process, identify areas for improvement, and implement changes. We were encouraged to think creatively and were supported with resources and guidance when needed. As a result, we were able to streamline the process, reduce customer wait times, and improve overall satisfaction. This experience not only boosted my confidence but also reinforced my belief in the power of empowerment in driving positive change within an organization. 2. Ask several persons outside of class what “participation” means. If their answers differ, explain why you think they do. Students’ answers may vary. Many people might respond that “participation” means belonging to a group or organization, in which case they might not even think of decision-making authority as being a qualifying dimension of the concept. Reasons might include the fact that many people have never had experience, even today, with true participation programs in their work. Participation can be interpreted in various ways depending on an individual's perspective and context. When asking several persons outside of class what "participation" means, it's likely that their answers will differ due to the following reasons: 1. Context: The context in which participation is discussed can influence its interpretation. For example, in a work setting, participation might refer to engaging in decision-making processes, while in a community context, it could mean being actively involved in local events or initiatives. 2. Personal Experience: Each person's personal experiences shape their understanding of participation. Someone who has had positive experiences with participatory decision-making may view it more favorably than someone who has felt marginalized in similar situations. 3. Cultural Differences: Cultural norms and values can also influence the perception of participation. In some cultures, collective decision-making is valued, while in others, individual autonomy is prioritized. 4. Professional Background: A person's professional background can affect their understanding of participation. For instance, someone in a leadership position may associate participation with delegation of tasks, while an employee may see it as having a voice in organizational decisions. Overall, the varying interpretations of participation among individuals highlight the subjective nature of the concept and the importance of considering different perspectives when discussing it in organizational settings. 3. How is it possible for participation to increase the power and influence of both manager and employee? Students’ answers may vary. A manager’s power and influence are dependent upon employee trust, a sense of responsibility, and a teamwork atmosphere. Participation allows employees to feel more cooperative and responsible. This, in turn, makes them more responsive to the manager’s influence, which increases his/her power. From a participative view, power is variable and flows in all directions. Thus, employees gain power and influence from the sharing of managerial authority (although, the manager retains final authority). Participation can increase the power and influence of both managers and employees through several mechanisms: 1. Enhanced Decision-Making: When employees participate in decision-making processes, they bring diverse perspectives and insights to the table. This can lead to better decisions that are more reflective of the organization's overall goals and values. Managers benefit from this increased pool of ideas and expertise, which enhances their decision-making capabilities. 2. Increased Commitment: When employees are involved in decision-making, they feel a greater sense of ownership and commitment to the outcomes. This can result in higher levels of motivation and engagement, leading to improved performance and productivity. Managers benefit from this increased commitment by having a more dedicated and motivated workforce. 3. Improved Communication: Participation encourages open and honest communication between managers and employees. This fosters trust and mutual respect, leading to stronger working relationships. Managers benefit from this improved communication by having a better understanding of employee needs and concerns, allowing them to address issues more effectively. 4. Empowerment: Participation empowers employees by giving them a voice in organizational matters. This can boost their confidence and morale, leading to increased job satisfaction and retention. Managers benefit from this empowerment by having more capable and self-reliant employees who can take on greater responsibilities. 5. Organizational Learning: Participation promotes a culture of learning and continuous improvement within the organization. Employees are encouraged to experiment with new ideas and approaches, leading to innovation and adaptation to changing circumstances. Managers benefit from this organizational learning by staying ahead of the curve and remaining competitive in the market. Overall, participation can be a powerful tool for increasing the power and influence of both managers and employees, leading to a more dynamic and effective organization. 4. Discuss the prerequisites for effective participation. Which of these are more difficult to fulfill? Do the more difficult prerequisites help explain why some managers are still relatively autocratic? Students’ answers may vary. The success of participation is directly related to how well certain prerequisite conditions are met. Major prerequisites for effective participation are as follows: • Employees must have enough time to participate before action is required. • The potential benefits of participation should be greater than the costs. For example, employees cannot spend so much time participating that they ignore their regular work duties. • The subject of participation must be relevant and interesting to the employees; otherwise, employees will look upon it merely as busywork. • The participants should have the mental capacity, such as intelligence and technical knowledge, to participate. The participants must be mutually able to participate—to talk each other’s language—in order to be able to exchange ideas. • Neither party should feel that its position is threatened by participation. • Participation for deciding a course of action in an organization can take place only within the group’s area of job freedom. It may be difficult when technology of the process involved may make it impossible for employees not familiar with that technology to participate in the process planning. It is hardly advisable, for example, to ask custodians in a pharmaceutical laboratory to participate in deciding which of five chemical formulas deserve research priority; but they might participate in helping resolve other problems related to their work. Students may also mention the participation continuum shown in Figure 8.6. Effective participation requires several prerequisites to be fulfilled: 1. Open Communication: There must be clear and open communication channels between managers and employees to ensure that information flows freely and everyone is kept informed. 2. Mutual Trust and Respect: There must be a foundation of trust and respect between managers and employees. This creates a positive environment where everyone feels comfortable sharing their ideas and opinions. 3. Shared Goals: Participants must have a clear understanding of the organization's goals and how their participation contributes to achieving these goals. This helps align individual efforts with organizational objectives. 4. Supportive Organizational Culture: The organizational culture should support and encourage participation. This includes recognizing and rewarding contributions, as well as providing opportunities for development and growth. 5. Competent Leadership: Effective leadership is essential for guiding and facilitating the participation process. Leaders must be able to inspire and motivate others, as well as resolve conflicts and make decisions when necessary. Some of these prerequisites can be more difficult to fulfill than others. For example, building mutual trust and respect can take time and effort, especially in organizations where there is a history of poor communication or conflict. Similarly, creating a supportive organizational culture requires a commitment from top management and may require changes to existing practices and policies. The more difficult prerequisites, such as building trust and changing organizational culture, can help explain why some managers are still relatively autocratic. In organizations where these prerequisites are not met, managers may feel that it is easier and more efficient to make decisions on their own rather than involve others in the decision-making process. Additionally, some managers may lack the skills or confidence to effectively facilitate participation, leading them to default to more autocratic leadership styles. 5. Many employees desire a higher level of participation than they are currently allowed. Why is it that managers do not provide more opportunities for participation now? Students’ answers may vary. However, student suggestions may include the following points. Supervisor/manager resistance is due to Theory X beliefs and assumptions held, the fear of losing status or traditional authority as key decision maker, lack of team-management skills, and the belief that the organization cannot change. Managers often do not provide more opportunities for employee participation for several reasons: 1. Control and Authority: Managers might believe that maintaining strict control over decision-making processes ensures consistency, reduces errors, and maintains a clear hierarchy. They may fear that increased employee participation could dilute their authority and lead to decision-making chaos. 2. Time Constraints: Encouraging and managing employee participation can be time-consuming. Managers might feel that involving employees in decision-making processes slows down operations and hampers productivity, especially in fast-paced environments where quick decisions are necessary. 3. Lack of Trust: There can be a lack of trust in employees' capabilities and judgment. Managers might doubt that employees have the necessary knowledge or skills to make effective decisions, leading them to restrict participation opportunities. 4. Resistance to Change: Organizational culture and established practices can create resistance to change. Managers who are accustomed to traditional, top-down management styles may be reluctant to shift to more participative approaches, fearing the unknown and the potential disruptions it might bring. 5. Insufficient Training and Development: Employees may not have received adequate training to participate effectively in decision-making processes. Managers might hesitate to involve employees without proper preparation, as this could result in suboptimal decisions and outcomes. 6. Perceived Risk of Conflict: Increased participation can lead to diverse opinions and potential conflicts. Managers might avoid participative approaches to prevent disagreements and maintain harmony within the team, fearing that conflicts could disrupt the workplace. 7. Performance Metrics and Incentives: Often, managers are evaluated based on short-term performance metrics and may perceive participative approaches as risky and potentially detrimental to achieving immediate targets. They might prioritize methods that ensure quick, measurable results. 8. Organizational Structure: The organizational structure itself can limit participation. Highly hierarchical organizations with rigid structures and clear demarcations between roles and responsibilities might not support or facilitate participative management practices. In summary, while many employees desire more participation, managers often hesitate due to concerns about maintaining control, time efficiency, trust, resistance to change, insufficient training, conflict risk, performance metrics, and organizational structure. Addressing these issues requires deliberate efforts to build trust, provide training, foster a participative culture, and align organizational structures and performance metrics with participative management goals. 6. List the several benefits that can flow from participation. Compare the various programs on the basis of the degree to which they are likely to provide those benefits. Students’ answers may vary. Following are benefits of participation: • Higher output • Better quality of output • Lead to ideas that produce genuine long-run improvements • Improved motivation • Improved self-esteem, job satisfaction and cooperation with management • Reduced conflict and stress • More commitment to goals • Better acceptance of change • Reduced turnover and absences • Organizational changes can be implemented more rapidly • Establishes better communication Benefits peculiar to participation programs are: • Suggestion programs—accenting individual initiative. • Quality circles—increase in productivity, decrease in absenteeism, increase in employee sense of accomplishment, influence, and opportunity for personal growth and recognition. • Total quality management—higher, better quality of output, leading to ideas that produce genuine long-run improvements • Rapid-cycle decision making—better quality, genuine, transparent, and yields definitive outcomes. • Self-managing teams—group consensus leads to greater acceptance of change. • Employee ownership plans—better management, increased morale, improved productivity, potential financial rewards. • Flexible work arrangements—improved self-esteem, job satisfaction and cooperation with management, reduced conflict and stress, and reduced turnover and absences. 7. Apply the leader-member exchange model to the professor-student relationship. What does each party have to give to the other? Students’ answers may vary. All parties in a participative program must recognize their responsibilities and must agree to meet their respective obligations. Assuming that the students are filling the role of employees in the relationship with the professor, they must agree to: • Be fully responsible for their actions and their consequences • Operate within the relevant organizational policies (of the college or university) • Be contributing team members • Respect and seek to use the perspectives of others • Be dependable and ethical in their empowered actions • Demonstrate responsible self-leadership Professors, to meet their obligations, should: • Identify the issues to be addressed • Specify the level of involvement desired • Provide relevant information and training • Allocate fair rewards Students have several things to give to the professor: enthusiasm for the issues to be addressed, a desire to learn, diversity of perspectives about the various issues, a willingness to examine and critically evaluate, and a commitment to adhere to the ground rules and expectations the professor sets forth. The professor, on the other hand, can provide proper guidance and share his/her expertise and knowledge, fairly and equitably evaluate student performance, and give feedback to aid student learning. 8. What was the area of freedom in your last job? Was it adequate for your needs? What groups or institutions restricted this freedom? In what ways was it too large an area? Students’ answers may vary. Some students will report under-participation, some will say participation was adequate, and still others may report over-participation. Many answers will probably mention a particular manager who did not empower employees; some may offer evidence of a union effort to restrict empowerment and participation. Let's break down the response into three parts: the extent of freedom, whether it was adequate, and the factors restricting this freedom. Extent of Freedom in My Last Job In my last job as a statistical analyst at Acme Steel, I had a moderate area of freedom. This included autonomy in how I approached data analysis, the methods I used for creating customer profiles, and the strategies for researching new markets. I could also make decisions on the systems for cataloging competitors' strengths and weaknesses, which allowed for some level of creativity and independent thinking. Adequacy of Freedom for My Needs This level of freedom was generally adequate for my needs. As an experienced analyst, I valued the ability to choose my methods and innovate in my approach. The autonomy helped me stay motivated and allowed me to leverage my skills effectively. However, there were times when I felt that more freedom could have enhanced my productivity and job satisfaction, especially when it came to decision-making in cross-departmental projects. Restrictions on Freedom Several groups and institutions restricted this freedom: 1. Management and Supervisors: They imposed guidelines and approval processes that sometimes slowed down my work. For example, any major change in data analysis methods required approval, which could delay projects. 2. Organizational Policies: Acme Steel had strict policies regarding data security and confidentiality. While these were essential for compliance and protection of company assets, they often limited the types of data I could access and share. 3. Regulatory Bodies: External regulations related to industry standards and labor negotiations also imposed constraints. Compliance with these regulations was mandatory, reducing flexibility in how certain tasks were performed. Instances of Excessive Freedom In some cases, the area of freedom was too large, leading to challenges such as: 1. Ambiguity in Roles: The lack of clear guidelines for some tasks created confusion and inefficiencies. For example, while developing a system for cataloging competitors' strengths, the absence of standardized procedures led to inconsistencies in the data recorded. 2. Decision-Making Pressure: Having the autonomy to make critical decisions without sufficient support or guidance sometimes led to stress and the fear of making mistakes that could impact the company's operations. In conclusion, while the area of freedom in my last job was largely beneficial and adequate for my needs, it was sometimes restricted by internal and external factors. On the flip side, excessive freedom without clear boundaries occasionally resulted in challenges. Balancing autonomy with structured guidance would have created an optimal work environment. 9. Consider the use of self-managing teams. What possible negative consequences can you predict once they are begun? Students’ answers may vary. Self-managing teams may take years to actually achieve true potential. As a result, students may say that self-management is too slow in achieving the results that managers desire. They may also mention that there could be power struggles for leadership within groups, as there are typically team leaders (not supervisors) for the groups, or that the team members will not be experienced leaders, so they may not know how to behave when allowed the autonomy of self-direction. Self-managing teams offer a range of benefits, including increased autonomy, enhanced job satisfaction, and greater innovation. However, their implementation can also lead to several potential negative consequences: 1. Lack of Clear Leadership • Challenge: In the absence of a designated leader, self-managing teams may struggle with decision-making processes. • Consequence: This can lead to indecision, conflicts, and a lack of direction, potentially resulting in project delays and reduced productivity. 2. Inequality in Work Distribution • Challenge: Without a formal hierarchy, there might be unequal distribution of work among team members. • Consequence: Some members may take on more responsibility than others, leading to burnout for some and disengagement for others. 3. Conflict Management • Challenge: Self-managing teams may lack formal mechanisms for conflict resolution. • Consequence: Unresolved conflicts can escalate, harming team cohesion and morale, and ultimately affecting team performance. 4. Variable Skill Levels • Challenge: Teams may consist of members with varying skill levels and expertise. • Consequence: This can lead to inconsistencies in work quality and performance, and more skilled members may become frustrated with having to mentor or correct the work of less skilled teammates. 5. Decision-Making Challenges • Challenge: Consensus-based decision-making can be time-consuming and may not always result in the best outcomes. • Consequence: Important decisions might be delayed or compromised, affecting the team’s overall effectiveness and the timely completion of projects. 6. Lack of Accountability • Challenge: In self-managing teams, individual accountability may become diffuse. • Consequence: This can lead to a lack of ownership over tasks and responsibilities, resulting in decreased performance and difficulty in identifying the root cause of any issues. 7. Resistance to Change • Challenge: Introducing self-managing teams may face resistance from employees accustomed to traditional hierarchical structures. • Consequence: This resistance can create friction and slow the transition process, impacting team dynamics and overall productivity. 8. Potential for Groupthink • Challenge: Self-managing teams, especially if they are cohesive, may fall victim to groupthink, where dissenting opinions are suppressed to maintain harmony. • Consequence: This can lead to poor decision-making and a lack of innovative solutions, as critical viewpoints are not considered. 9. Resource Allocation • Challenge: Teams might struggle with managing resources effectively without a centralized figure to oversee allocation. • Consequence: Mismanagement of resources can lead to inefficiencies and increased costs. 10. Difficulty in Performance Evaluation • Challenge: Evaluating the performance of self-managing teams can be complex, as traditional metrics and evaluation methods may not apply. • Consequence: This can result in challenges in rewarding performance, providing constructive feedback, and identifying areas for improvement. In conclusion, while self-managing teams can drive significant benefits in terms of autonomy and innovation, it is crucial to be aware of and proactively address these potential negative consequences to ensure their success and sustainability. Establishing clear guidelines, providing adequate training, and implementing effective conflict resolution and performance evaluation mechanisms can help mitigate these risks. 10. Consider your instructor’s fulfillment of the stewardship role. In what ways does she or he demonstrate partnership building, service, and empowerment? Students’ answers will vary. However, they should revolve around: • Service to others while building student capabilities • Creating partnerships of balanced power while releasing control and losing predictability • Empowering others to create the organization’s culture, deliver outcomes to customer, and support ownership and choice at every level To answer the question about how my instructor fulfills the stewardship role by demonstrating partnership building, service, and empowerment, I'll draw on specific examples from my experience in the classroom. Partnership Building 1. Collaborative Projects: My instructor often organizes group assignments that require students to work together. This fosters a sense of partnership among students and between students and the instructor. 2. Open Communication: She encourages open dialogue and values students' input, creating a collaborative learning environment. For example, she often holds open forums for students to discuss course content and provide feedback on teaching methods. 3. Networking Opportunities: He invites industry professionals to speak in class and organizes networking events, helping students build connections that can benefit their future careers. Service 1. Availability and Support: My instructor consistently offers office hours and is readily available for extra help, demonstrating a commitment to students' academic success. She often goes beyond the scheduled time to ensure that every student's questions are addressed. 2. Resource Sharing: He provides additional resources such as articles, case studies, and practical tools that help students deepen their understanding of the subject matter. This includes sharing relevant research papers and current industry practices. 3. Community Involvement: She integrates community service projects into the curriculum, allowing students to apply their learning in real-world contexts while contributing to the community. For instance, she has organized volunteer opportunities with local non-profits related to the course content. Empowerment 1. Encouraging Independent Thinking: My instructor promotes critical thinking by challenging students to question assumptions and explore diverse perspectives. This is often done through thought-provoking questions and case studies that require independent analysis. 2. Delegating Responsibilities: He assigns leadership roles within group projects, empowering students to take ownership of their learning and develop their leadership skills. This includes roles such as project manager, research lead, and presentation coordinator. 3. Providing Constructive Feedback: She offers detailed and constructive feedback on assignments and exams, helping students understand their strengths and areas for improvement. This feedback is always framed positively, encouraging students to strive for excellence. 4. Promoting Self-Directed Learning: He designs assignments that require students to identify their own learning goals and pursue knowledge independently. For example, students might be asked to research a topic of their choice within the course framework and present their findings to the class. In conclusion, my instructor exemplifies the stewardship role through effective partnership building, dedicated service, and empowering students to take control of their learning. These efforts create a supportive and dynamic educational environment that prepares students for future success. Assess Your Own Skills Students should honestly circle the number on the response scale that most closely reflects the degree to which each statement accurately describes them. This section will help them understand how well they exhibit good reward and empowerment skills. Incident Joe Adams Certain points need to be made in favor of Adams’ desire to try participation in his department. The text reports that even authoritarian supervisors can practice participation effectively; so even if employees have the autocratic role expectation that management claims, Adams should be able to begin some participative efforts effectively. Furthermore, management’s claim that the schedule does not allow time off for participation is invalid, because it is not necessary to shut down the assembly line in order to build participation. Adams may develop participation by working individually with his people in regular daily contacts or with small groups during breaks. Furthermore, even though much of the production process is determined by engineers, there are surely other departmental affairs in which the employees can participate genuinely. Another point is that if the minority groups in the department have had a less-advantaged background, they particularly may welcome participation because it will give them more control over their own affairs and better integration into the full group working as a whole social system. Along this same line, although most employees have only a high school education, they still can participate. Higher education is not necessary for effective participation, particularly in the kind of work involved in this case. If we look at this situation from McGregor’s Theories X and Y, McGregor supports the idea that if Adams’ philosophy has changed more toward Theory Y, his behavior will reflect more consideration and use of participation. Behavior results from philosophy. Similarly Herzberg’s research suggests that some motivators can be built into the situation without having to change the assembly line. An example is recognition. Further, maintenance factors such as company procedure may be improved. If we examine this situation in terms of Fiedler’s contingency model, it appears to be in Octant V, in which more participative behavior is more effective. Leader-member relations are usually poor on an assembly line; the task is structured; and leader position power appears strong; further, the path-goal theory of leadership suggests that in structured, routine situations leader’s social support and consideration will be effective. Considering all the factors favorable to participation, it seems appropriate to encourage Adams to make limited efforts toward participation. If he succeeds, this will build his experience and confidence, and then he can take further participative steps. Adams should be warned that, considering the organizational climate and working conditions, certain fancy participation schemes are likely to backfire, and he should be cautious not to become mired in useless procedures. A slow beginning is probably best in his situation, but he can move forward toward a more participative, supportive model of organizational behavior. Experiential Exercise Empowerment through Participation Empowerment fully occurs when employees: feel competent, valued, and have opportunities to use their talents. Students are asked to work in groups of three or four, and rate (1 = low, 10 = high) the degree to which the group feels each of the participative program would produce these feelings of empowerment. The exercise will help students understand how empowerment can be achieved through participation, as implied by their assessments of the different participative programs. Generating OB Insights Students’ responses will vary for this exercise. They should however, highlight several of the major topics discussed in the chapter such as the nature of empowerment and its prerequisites, the participative process, benefits of participation, types of participative programs, etc. Solution Manual for Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work John W. Newstrom 9780078112829, 9781259254420
