Participative design (PD) is the basic
building block for creating a self-managing organization. It
is a method for moving from a bureaucratic model to one in which
people restructure their own workplace. No design is imposed.
It is unique because the responsibility for coordination and
control of work moves away from supervisors to the people actually
doing the work.
The vehicle for implementing the self-managing
design is a one or two day event called the participative
design workshop (PDW). Before any workshops are conducted,
however, considerable planning and education are required.
The biggest
organizational blind spot
Let's be honest. There are some things
we know to be true without needing someone to prove it to us.
- Did you ever really doubt that cigarette
smoking is hazardous to your health?
- Do you need proof that talking on a cell
phone while driving a car increases risk of accident?
- Does anyone really question that abused
children are more likely to be abusive adults?
We have a sort of collective consensus
about these things. We know other people will agree with
us. We even feel safe talking about these topics in social situations
because they pose low risk of disagreement.
OK, here's another one:
- Do you really think bureaucracy is the
best way to get things done?
I'll bet my collective consensus most of
you agree that bureaucracy is a badly flawed system we grudgingly
make the most of. So why, then, do organizations continue to
function in ways most acknowledge to be frustratingly ineffective?
We all have blind spots; areas of behavior
or personality that are outside of our awareness. Blind spots
cause problems when they contradict our intended purpose. Smiling
while apologizing to someone, for instance, sends a very confusing
mixed message. Organizations have their own blind spots. One
such blind spot that is the root of many problems and missed
opportunities is the bureaucratic organizational design.
Company leaders devote considerable resources
and talent hoping to achieve great accomplishments and success.
They search for ways to empower employees, dreaming of high levels
of cooperation, creativity, and initiative. They implement programs,
training, change initiatives, and new technology to reach these
ends. Yet, in the long run, too many of these efforts fail to
deliver expected results. What's wrong with this picture?
Much like a blind spot, organizational
design is overlooked as a key to organizational breakthrough.
Indeed, the design structure underlying the vast majority of
companies and organizations has remained unchanged for over 200
years (Emery and Purser, 1996, p. 50). That design is the command
and control hierarchy.
Bye bye bureaucracy
Basically, there are two ways to structure
an organization. One is a command and control structure where
responsibility for coordination and control of work occurs one
level above where the work is being done. This is called Design
Principle 1 (DP1), and it typifies the familiar bureaucratic
organizations in which we've all worked. The other is an organizational
structure where coordination and control of work tasks is done
by those actually doing the work. This is called Design Principle
2 (DP2) and it is the structure necessary for truly self-managing
organizations. (Emery and Purser, pp. 102-109)
Most organizations are still command and
control structures (DP1). This design made sense back in the
industrial age, but not any more. In those days, employees were
viewed as replaceable cogs in the organizational wheel. Easily
replaceable, they needed the guidance and expertise of supervisors
to oversee their performance. The DP1 structure worked well with
a vast untrained workforce in a predictable environment. Many
of us have prospered in just such organizations.
In today's turbulent environment, however,
the DP1 structure is no longer adaptive. Managers and supervisors
can't be experts in every facet of the complex workplace, and
employees no longer tolerate being treated like cogs in a wheel
who need to be told what to do. Increasingly, the workforce consists
of knowledge workers, who are capable of managing their own work
and need to do so to maximize creativity.
Research conducted by Fred Emery and other
social scientists identified a litany of problems with bureaucracy.
The following are just a few they found (Cabana, 1995, p.221):
- Bureaucracy stifles creativity, learning,
and enthusiasm.
- The bureaucratic workplace reinforces
competition rather than cooperation.
- People withhold valuable information that
might give another internal person or group a competitive advantage.
- Those at the top rarely have an idea of
what is really happening below them because subordinates distort
and filter information as it travels up the hierarchy.
Bureaucratic organizations create a vicious
cycle. They assume employees need to be told what to do and get
exactly that employees who wait for guidance and don't
take responsibility. When employees behave this way, organizations
often "get tough" and respond with more control. Improvement
programs like TQM, empowerment, and re-engineering eventually
bog down because they still retain centralized control and fail
to alter the organization's underlying structure.
Say hello
to self-management
Although new to the United States, participative,
or self-managed, organizational designs are being widely adopted
in other countries (Emery, 1993, p.16). Self-managing organizations
have competitive advantages because they extend the skills and
functions of their employees and reassign responsibility for
control and coordination of work to the level where it is performed.
Self-managing organizations are based on
the DP2 structure, wherein team members can decide among themselves
how to manage their work activities. Self-management is radically
different from the command and control structure to which we've
grown accustomed. It is so far off the radar of many organizations
that they don't even see it. Even when they do see it, the decision
to shift to a self-managing approach is an enormous one that
affects every aspect of an organization. It not only changes
how work gets done, but it also transforms the values and culture
of an organization.
The pathway to redesign requires that business
strategy, organizational architecture, support systems, and human
resources systems all be re-aligned with one another. When these
components are aligned to support self-management, organizations
are more effective, flexible, and adaptive. The prospect of designing
a self-managing organization is challenging, but the rewards
are substantial.
What's In It For Me?
So why would an organization decide to
cast aside it's cherished relationship with bureaucracy in favor
of the uncharted waters of self-management?
- Self-managing organizations are cheaper
to run, they have lower overhead.
- Self-managing organizations are more productive.
- The self-managing organization is a more
effective way to get things done.
- Employees display higher levels of involvement,
responsibility, and commitment.
- Employees take more initiative and demonstrate
more creativity than their counterparts in command and control
organizations.
- Compared to their command and control
counterparts, self-managing organizations are more flexible.
They anticipate and adapt more quickly to changes in the marketplace
and surrounding environment.
Been There Done That
A barrier to self-management in the United
States is the belief among many companies that they've already
tried it. Many organizations implement programs under the guise
of self-management, such as self-managed teams and employee empowerment.
Unfortunately, most of these programs are just window dressing
because the underlying organizational structure remains DP1.
The trend in the U.S. is "to pretend you can have a self-managing
group, with a supervisor who is re-labeled as a trainer, leader,
or coach when in truth responsibility hasn't really been shifted
to the team (Emery, p. 8)". Changing a supervisor's title
doesn't reap the benefits of self-management unless the organizational
structure is changed to DP2.
Cosmetic changes that don't address the
organizational structure eventually fail, leaving both management
and employees sick of terms like self-management and empowerment.
Cosmetic changes that don't work also leave the organization
vulnerable to grabbing the next hot management tool-of-the-month
that inevitably comes along. No wonder employees groan when they
hear about another new organizational initiative. They know it,
too, will be gone before long, so there is little incentive to
pay much attention.
Participative
design basics
If you've hung in there this far, you're
probably ready for some "how to". The remainder of
this article provides an overview of the participative design
process for creating a self-managing organization. A word of
caution though, don't go out and try this on your own. Bring
in a knowledgeable consultant with advanced training in participative
design theory and methods.
Participative design (PD) is the basic
building block for creating a self-managing organization. It
is a method for moving from a bureaucratic model to one in which
people restructure their own workplace no design is imposed.
It is unique because the responsibility for coordination and
control of work moves away from supervisors to the people actually
doing the work.
The vehicle for implementing the self-managing
design is a one or two day event called the participative
design workshop (PDW). Before any workshops are conducted,
however, considerable planning and education are required.
Think And Talk Time
The transition from a DP1 to a DP2 is a
profound change that requires absolute commitment from leadership
and extensive education throughout the organization. It is critical
that executives, managers, supervisors and team members have
conceptual understanding of participative design principles.
Team boundaries must be negotiated within the overall vision
and mission of the organization. The roles of managers and supervisors
must be carefully redesigned, and support must be provided to
help them make the adjustments.
Like any good initiative, the participative
design process begins with an organization-wide communication
and education process. This phase is more important than usual,
however, because the result of the participative design process
is a fundamentally new organization in terms of structure, culture
and values. The outcome of this journey is heavily influenced
by how clearly employees understand the design principles and
concepts of self-management. Take time to make sure this happens.
Education and planning varies from organization
to organization, but should always begin with senior management.
Union involvement should also begin at this point where applicable.
Educational workshops, presentations and discussion groups help
managers understand the differences between bureaucratic and
participative structures, and how their outcomes differ. One
way to educate managers is to conduct an abbreviated PDW to give
them a chance to experience the process directly and assess its
applicability. (Purser and Cabana, pp. 209-211)
After working with management, facilitators
conduct educational forums throughout the organization. Employees
at all levels need time to assimilate the new concepts and learn
about participative design. It is useful to distribute and discuss
a Q&A booklet that addressees many of the typical concerns
and questions employees will have.
The Vision Thing
Before embarking on a participative design
process, the organization needs a clearly defined and compelling
vision. Employees need to know where they are headed and why
it is important. Ideally, the vision is established in a participatory
process as well, so that widespread commitment and responsibility
are achieved. The best method for accomplishing this, also developed
by Fred and Merrelyn Emery (Emery and Purser, 1996), is called
the search conference.
Search conference is a participative process that enables a large
group to collectively create a plan for the future that its members
themselves will implement.
OK, Some Rules Are Necessary
The final step before conducting PDW's
is the creation of minimum critical specifications against which
all designs are developed and measured. Management must spell
out specific written boundaries within which teams must work.
Examples might include "no increase in staff" or "maintain
the same level of customer satisfaction". Minimum specifications
might also include required outputs or quality levels from teams.
Management must balance the need for guidance with the risk of
creating too many "rules" that smother the creative
process. During the PDW's these minimum specifications will be
posted for all to see. These minimum specifications create boundaries
within which teams are free to be responsible for the control
and coordination of their own work.
How Many, How Long?
The PDW is a flexible process that can
be adapted to fit organizational needs. Depending on the size
and complexity of the organization, a PDW can last one or two
days. The PDW usually consists of 20-35 people from the organization
working in small groups. The process requires one or two facilitators
who have been trained in the PDW approach. Sufficient space for
group movement, and plenty of flip charts for reports are needed.
Where To Start?
The participative design process usually
starts at the bottom, among naturally occurring sections of the
organization, such as teams, work units or departments. "Change
the design principle first amongst people who collectively know
their section of the organization and can readily get on with
the work (Emery, M., 1995, p.141)." Once lower levels are
redesigned and functioning, the higher organizational levels
can be redesigned. Before starting a participative design process,
it is absolutely necessary to have a written binding agreement
for some reasonable time that the design will be DP2 rather than
DP1. Without such an agreement, teams and departments will lack
the "legal" basis for being self-managed and people
will invariably slip back into DP1 behavior. The agreement provides
teams with the protection and freedom they need to manage their
own work.
Who Attends?
Group size is an important PDW consideration.
If the work group or unit is small (between 4-12 people), it
is best if everybody works together on the design. When a larger
section of the organization is being redesigned, it is necessary
to get wide participation that reflects a deep slice of the organization.
Mixed teams from the same department or unit can work in parallel
during the workshop and then integrate their designs. Or, with
larger units, teams can participate in separate workshops and
integrate their designs later.
Participative
design workshop
First: Analyze
The PDW begins with introductions and an
overview of the agenda. Top management meets with the group briefly
to review organizational purpose and the minimum critical specifications,
that remain posted throughout the PDW.
Before the analytical work begins, the
facilitator introduces the six critical
human requirements for motivated work (Emery and Thorsrud,
1969) and explains how the designs of traditional work systems
fail to satisfy these requirements. These six criteria must be
designed into the work structure for people to be fully responsible
and committed to their work. The group creates a matrix that
rates the extent to which their current jobs meet these six critical
requirements.
The facilitator also introduces the matrix
for mapping team skills. The group creates a chart that compares
the essential skills required by their work function to the existence
of those skills among team members. Then, groups report their
findings on both matrices and will use this information during
the redesign phase to diagnose where gaps exist.
Second: Redesign
At the outset of the redesign phase, the
facilitator presents the democratic design principle and explains
how DP2 influences the six criteria for motivated work and how
it relates to skill levels. Participants are now ready to focus
on redesigning their structure.
Groups start by drawing up rough outlines
of their existing work flows and structure. These charts show
how decisions are currently made and how closely the current
structure resembles either bureaucratic or participative designs.
Next, groups are ready to redesign their
own structure to produce the best possible design for everyone.
Their new designs will be measured against whether they enhance
people's critical psychological requirements, build flexibility
through skill redundancy, and reduce bottlenecks in the work
flow system.
During a plenary session, groups present
and compare their initial design options. Other groups give feedback
and suggestions for improvements. The facilitator then provides
a briefing on implementation practicalities and issues that must
be taken into account in final designs. Based on this input,
teams make additional adjustments to their designs.
Third: Implement
During this phase, groups develop a comprehensive
and measurable set of goals and targets for their unit. Teams
must develop their own full range of goals, addressing operational,
business, human resources, and technical areas. The goals must
be clear, realistic, and challenging. Psychology 101 tells us
that employees will commit with more enthusiasm to goals they
develop.
Initial team goals will still require negotiation
with middle management to ensure targets are consistent with
and support the overall organizational vision and goals. This
is a key role for middle managers in self-managing organizations.
Teams also will determine training requirements
based on careful analysis of their skill matrices. In this fashion,
teams develop their own training plans rather than having them
imposed from above. They identify the training they will need
to function as a self-managed team.
At this point, teams specify additional organizational arrangements
that will be required to become self-managing. These might include
feedback mechanisms, equipment, job rotation procedures, support
needed from other groups, and staffing needs.
