This Is An Exercise That Explores The Concept Of Participati

This Is An Exercise That Explores The Concept Of Participative Man

This exercise explores the concept of participative management, how to implement it (and how not to!!), and what needs to be done to make it successful. Read about this on pages 70-86 in the textbook. Objective: This exercise asks you to analyze what happened when a plant manager tried to apply the idea of participative decision making in his organization. Be sure to use the tools discussed in the chapter. Directions: Read the following story and consider the questions at the end of the exercise. These questions will be the starting point for this discussion board.

John Stevens, plant manager of the Fairlee Plant of Lockheed Corporation, attended the advanced management seminar conducted at a large Midwestern university. The seminar of four weeks' duration was largely devoted to the topic of executive decision making. Professor Mennon, one of the university staff, particularly impressed John with his lectures on group discussion and group decision making. Based on research and experience, Professor Mennon believed that employees, if given the opportunity, could meet together, consider issues intelligently, and then formulate quality decisions that would be enthusiastically accepted.

After returning to his plant, John decided to implement some of these principles. He gathered 25 employees from department B and told them that production standards established several years prior were no longer appropriate given recent automation advances. He allowed the employees to discuss and decide among themselves what their standards should be. Expecting the team to potentially set higher standards, John was surprised when, after an hour, the group decided to lower the standards by 10%. They argued that current standards were too high to ensure fair profits on the owner’s investment, but John knew that lowering standards might undermine profitability. Recognizing the potential for issues, John called Professor Mennon for advice.

Consider the following questions:

1. What went wrong?

2. Was John's style of participative decision making appropriate for the situation?

3. What style should he have used?

4. What should John do now, regardless of what Professor Mennon says?

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Participative management is an organizational leadership style that involves employees in decision-making processes, fostering a sense of ownership and commitment to organizational goals. While it offers numerous benefits, including increased motivation and diverse perspectives, its success heavily depends on the context, the nature of decisions, and the approach taken by managers. The case of John Stevens at the Lockheed Corporation provides an insightful example of the challenges and pitfalls associated with participative decision making when applied without considering specific situational factors.

Analysis of What Went Wrong

The core issue in John Stevens' case centered on the misalignment between the participative approach he employed and the nature of the decision at hand. Although the intention was to encourage employee involvement, the decision to have employees set their own production standards proved to be problematic. Specifically, the employees, recognizing that they could influence standards, chose to lower them by 10%, believing this would ensure easier production and possibly better job security. However, this decision conflicted with the company's financial objectives, as lower standards would reduce profitability.

One fundamental mistake was the assumption that employees, if involved, would naturally make decisions aligned with organizational profitability. This reflects a common misconception in participative management—that employee involvement inherently leads to better decisions. In reality, employees’ focus may be on operational convenience rather than overarching business goals, especially if their incentives are misaligned or if they lack comprehensive insight into financial implications.

Furthermore, the process itself was flawed due to insufficient guidance and framing of the decision. Instead of facilitating a structured discussion about appropriate standards—considering both operational realities and fiscal targets—John allowed the group to determine standards freely, leading to a politically and economically unsound decision. The employees' reduction of standards indicates a lack of understanding of broader business impacts and highlights the importance of managerial oversight during participative processes.

Was John's Style of Participative Decision Making Appropriate?

John’s attempt at participative decision making was well-intentioned but ultimately inappropriate for the situation. His approach was mainly consultative—he set the stage for employee input but did not control or guide the decision process effectively. His assumption that employees would arrive at a decision aligning with organizational interests overlooked the reality that employees might prioritize their immediate circumstances or perceived ease of work over profitability.

Moreover, his decision to leave the final decision in their hands without setting clear boundaries or providing necessary information reflects a lack of strategic planning. Effective participative management involves balancing employee input with managerial oversight, ensuring decisions align with strategic goals. In this case, John’s failure to provide sufficient context, constraints, or alternatives led to a decision counterproductive to the organization’s needs.

Appropriate Style for the Situation

The appropriate style would have been a participative approach characterized by facilitation rather than abdication. This involves engaging employees in discussions while guiding the conversation with facts, strategic objectives, and constraints. For example, John could have presented baseline data on current standards, explained the profit implications, and facilitated a discussion that included these considerations. This style is aligned with the facilitative leadership model, where managers act as moderators, not just decision delegates.

Alternatively, a consultative style could have been employed, where John gathers employee input but retains the responsibility for final decisions. This approach allows employees to feel involved and valued while ensuring decisions are consistent with organizational goals. Critical to this is framing the discussion with clear objectives and parameters, thus avoiding the risk of employees making decisions that undermine strategic priorities.

Recommended Immediate Actions

Despite Professor Mennon’s input, John should take immediate steps to rectify the situation:

- Reassess the current standards explicitly, considering both operational efficiency and financial viability.

- Communicate transparently with employees about the organizational goals, including profitability and productivity benchmarks.

- Re-engage the team in a structured discussion, framing the decision by providing necessary context, such as financial targets and operational requirements.

- Implement a collaborative process where input is gathered, but the decision is made collaboratively with clear boundaries.

- Provide education or training if needed to help employees understand the broader organizational impacts of their decisions.

- Closely monitor implementation and provide ongoing feedback to ensure standards are realistic, motivating, and aligned with business goals.

- Establish continuous dialogue channels to improve understanding and cooperation between management and employees, ensuring future participative initiatives are effectively structured.

Conclusion

The case of John Stevens illustrates that participative management is not simply about giving employees a voice; it requires strategic guidance, appropriate framing, and balancing participation with managerial control. Without these elements, even well-meaning initiatives can backfire, leading to decisions that conflict with organizational objectives. Effective participative leadership is thus a skillful blend of facilitation, education, and strategic oversight—crucial for fostering genuine employee engagement and sustainable organizational success.

References

• Cammann, C., & Wasserman, E. W. (1989). Leadership and participative management. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(3), 133-148.
• Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Vandenberg, R. J. (2000). Toward a more comprehensive understanding of participation in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(4), 545-565.
• Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. (1986). Employee participation: diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 621-632.
• Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization: The conflict between system and the individual. Harper.
• Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
• McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.
• Shapiro, D. L., & Kirkman, B. L. (2016). Enhancing the effectiveness of participative management. Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 559-574.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press.