Employee Participation Schemes in Improving Organisational Performance - Coursework Example

WHAT ROLE MIGHT EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION SCHEMES PLAY IN IMPROVING ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE By December 2007 What Role Might Employee Participation Schemes Play In Improving Organisational Performance Traditionally, the word employee in the term employee involvement has referred to everyone other than managers or white collar support personnel. Most involvement approaches--from quality circles to empowerment initiatives--are "sold" to top executives and "done" to line workers, leaving a large and critically important group of employees untouched and uninvolved. This makes very little sense. How can a company encourage its line employees to participate in continuous improvement at the same time that it effectively "excuses" staff personnel from practicing what is being preached At the same time, recent improvement initiatives, such as business process reengineering, stress the importance of involving all employees (Taylor, 2005). The Diverse Forms of Employee Involvement The many forms of employee involvement can be grouped into two basic categories. The first (more common) approach consists of suggestion systems, quality circles, ad-hoc participation groups, and cross-functional task forces. These programs are part of the parallel organization structure and thus can be called supplemental initiatives. The parallel organization co-exists with the formal organization structure and is intended to facilitate communication, coordination, and opportunities for change (Chan & So, 1997). The second employee-involvement approach includes replacement initiatives, which modify or replace the formal organization structure. Essentially, these initiatives become institutionalized; they involve employees in decision making regarding how work is performed and how jobs can be made more effective. An example of a replacement initiative is self-managing work teams, which are different from quality circles and other problem-solving groups in that they make problem solving, decision making, and managing the work process part of the day-to-day job (Chiu, 1998). Who's Missing In Employee Involvement and Why Let's first take a look at how employee involvement has been defined. One well-known definition is Edwin Locke and David Schweiger's (1979) explanation of participative decision making as "joint decision making." Another definition of employee involvement describes it as a systematic approach to redistributing the responsibility and accountability for problem solving and decision making to the lowest appropriate level. One could also look at the dimensions of participation that have been identified in the literature: the degree to which it is formal, versus informal; the degree to which it is direct, versus indirect; the level of influence that employees have; and the nature of the decisions they make. Clearly, the definitions of participation do not inherently exclude white collar and knowledge workers, although many definitions tend to emphasize involving lower level employees (Chu, 1997). An Affinity Group Model To examine the affinity group process, it's important to begin with a definition. Specifically, an affinity group is a collegial association of peers that meets on a regular basis to share information, capture opportunities, and solve problems that affect the group and the overall organization (Dale, Cooper, & Wilkinson, 1997). Affinity groups are a horizontal, cross-cutting mechanism. Among their key characteristics: Group members have the same job position or title; group-member roles are formalized; group meetings are regular and frequent; the group has a charter stating its mission and domain; and the group is self-managing, in that it is responsible for managing its processes and output. Within an organization's infrastructure, affinity groups are a supplemental initiative, since they are not part of daily production/service responsibilities. The parallel organization structure provides unique problem-solving and improvement opportunities for these groups, whose members would not routinely interact as part of their daily job responsibilities. Affinity groups also have a link to the formal organization, however, because they are composed of cross-sections of employees having similar job positions in the organization. An organization may implement other initiatives in the parallel structure in addition to affinity groups (Head, 1997). Below, the characteristics of affinity groups in more depth are discussed. Key Characteristic No. 1: The Same Job Position An affinity group's members have the same general position or job title. Thus, members do not typically feel inhibited at meetings, since they need not fear repercussions from those with more formal power. The power that is exerted during group meetings tends to be personal or expert power, rather than formal hierarchical power. In addition, if a member cannot attend a meeting, he or she is not permitted to send a substitute. As a result, group meetings are always composed of attendees who are true members of the group, are abreast of group activities, and are willing participants (Kearney, 1997). Key Characteristic No. 2: Formal Group-Member Roles Group-member roles are formal, in that the group elects a convener, a recorder, and a reporter, and it specifies a term of office, usually six months. An external facilitator, who is not a member of the group or organization, is also named. The use of formal roles helps affinity groups achieve several benefits. First, these roles introduce members to group process and behavior, which improves the quality and effectiveness of meetings. Members develop an awareness of the need for roles and become skilled at performing them over time. In addition, the convener, recorder, and reporter roles are rotated among group members, which foster maximum participation and spread the workload among the entire group (Pun & Chin, 1998). Key Characteristic No. 3: Regular, Frequent Meetings Affinity groups generally meet weekly or biweekly on the same day of the week and at the same time, unlike standing committees, which meet only to address a specific need or problem, or task forces, which are dissolved once the task is accomplished. As a result, they can progress quickly through the stages of group development identified by Bruce Tuckman (1965): forming, storming, norming, and performing. Key Characteristic No. 4: A Group Charter and Mission Affinity groups have a mission, or purpose for being, reflected in the charter that group members develop. The charter should include at least the following: the group's mission, its domain of responsibility, the meeting day and time, the schedule for rotating group -member roles, and the responsibilities of each role. (The group may decide to include additional information about the way it functions or specific areas of focus.) The charter not only helps group members understand and agree on their mission and the way the group will function; it also helps them communicate this information to outsiders (Pun, Chin & Chan, 1998). Key Characteristic No. 5: Self-Management An affinity group has no permanent leader; instead, leadership is divided among the members holding group roles, which are rotated over time. Essentially, the group is self-managing as defined by Richard Hackman (1986): It not only performs its group task (information sharing, decision making, and problem solving), it also monitors and manages its own performance and the quality of its output. With the help of its facilitator, each group is expected to obtain all necessary resources (e.g., time, money, training, and education). To heighten their effectiveness in the area of self-management, affinity groups are kept relatively small, with generally not more than 15 to 20 members. Key Characteristic No. 6: Off-site Meetings Off-site meetings are held for one or more days generally several times a year, and may include one affinity group or more, depending on the issues needing attention. A retreat away from the office provides an environment without workplace interruptions and distractions. Off-site meetings are effective for addressing long-term issues, while meetings at the office can primarily cover short-term and/or urgent issues (Purser & Steven, 1997). Key Characteristic No. 7: The Facilitators' Conclave The purpose of a facilitators' conclave is to allow facilitators to meet and exchange information on both the progress of their group and the way they operate within the group. This exchange results in a more consistent facilitating process throughout the organization. When an off-site retreat for more than one affinity group is planned, the conclave may convene earlier to develop and review the agenda. Conclaves also discuss general topics, such as whether the reporter of one group needs to provide information to another group (Spreitzer, Kizilos & Nason, 1997). How Affinity Groups Impact Performance Tesco, Inc., United Kingdom Tesco, Inc. recently embarked on a large-scale organizational improvement project that included the strategic goal of improving one of its distribution systems by 30 percent or more in 18 months. To accomplish this it needed to redesign many organizational systems including education and training, measurement, technology, communications, planning, motivation, culture, and infrastructure. To support this ambitious effort, it formed an affinity group of performance-improvement project leaders. The group's sponsor and mentor is the senior vice president of development/chief information officer. This executive handpicked group members from among those already involved in improvement projects in the engineering, logistics, information systems, finance, human resources, and retail areas. This group composition strays somewhat from the model we've presented, in that group members do not all have the same job position or title; however, the group is homogeneous in that members have a similar job function--namely, leading change--and they are all at roughly the same organizational level. The objective of this affinity group, described in the purpose statement the members wrote, is to encourage communication among departments and divisions, develop people's leadership skills with respect to organizational change, create a learning organization, and develop a company-wide perspective. Above all, the group and its sponsor are concentrating on educating and developing people to prepare them to assume leadership roles in the organization's improvement initiatives. The group is addressing a number of questions, including (1) how is a "learning organization," and (2) How does an organization create a critical mass of "change masters" In existence for approximately eight months, the Tesco group meets every two weeks. Initial meetings lasted four hours; more recent meetings last two. Three months after its formation, the group held its first off-site meeting with its external facilitator, so it could (1) been to learn theories and concepts of continuous improvement, (2) get to know one another and begin to learn to work as a team, (3) share information about each group member's improvement project, (4) develop a "generic" agenda for regular group meetings, and (5) identify the topic areas, or modules, to which the group will devote learning time over the next year. Examples of these learning topics include strategic planning, performance measurement, competitive benchmarking, facilitation skills, and time management. Tesco's affinity group strategy is different from that of NP in a number of ways. First, of course, the Tesco group is composed of performance-improvement leaders. In addition, the group's reporter invites to every meeting a guest speaker--usually, but not necessarily, a top manager in the organization--who gives a five-or ten-minute talk about either his or her vision for Tesco or some upcoming event or initiative the group may be interested in. The purpose of this talk is to broaden each member's knowledge about the organization and to reinforce systems thinking. Moreover, the Tesco group places a significant emphasis on continuous-improvement education and training. About 80 percent of almost every meeting is devoted to learning a topic identified at the off-site. Each group member coordinates a learning exercise--a discussion of theory followed by an examination of practical applications--for a particular topic. Finally, the Tesco affinity group has a game plan for the future. Once it acquires the skills and knowledge base to support change and continuous improvement, it will design an affinity group structure for the rest of the organization. Group members may very likely serve as facilitators for these new groups, or for other project and improvement teams. Conclusions Designing, developing, and implementing continuous-improvement efforts requires systems thinking--thinking about the organization as a collection of systems while also appreciating the "gestalt," or dynamics of the whole. While managers and organization leaders have been executing "quick fixes" over the past 20 years, they are increasingly recognizing that interventions designed to improve overall quality and competitiveness must be comprehensive and integrated. Employee involvement is central to many interventions and therefore integral to optimization of the overall organization. The challenge facing American organizations today is how to meaningfully engage 100 percent of the workforce in continuous improvement efforts in a coordinated and systematic fashion. It has been found that the affinity group concept is a viable mechanism in many cases. Affinity groups help develop, solidify, and positively influence the informal organization and culture. They promote the sharing of information and knowledge across organizational functions; enhance employees' problem-solving skills; encourage systems thinking and an appreciation for the overall organization; help employees identify and address education and training needs; and advance horizontal and vertical communications. In short, affinity groups can play an instrumental role in an organization's continuous-improvement efforts by providing a structured and systematic way of involving white collar and knowledge workers. References Chan, A.W. & So, L.C. (1997) Aligning human resource management practices with total quality management in Hong Kong, Proceedings of the 7th Quality Circles Convention, Hong Kong, March, pp. (20)1-10. Chiu, R.K. (1998) Employee involvement in a total quality management programme: problem in Chinese firms in Hong Kong, Quality and Management, 14, June/July, pp. 8-11. Chu, K.F. (1997) An organisational culture for quality through empowerment, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Quality and Reliability, Hong Kong, 1 September, pp. 19-23. Dale, B., Cooper, C. & Wilkinson, h. (1997) Managing Quality and Human Resources: A Guide to Continuous Improvement, 2nd Edn (Oxford, Blackwell). Hackman, J.R. (1986). "The Psyschology of Self-Management in Organizations" in M. Pallack and R. Perloff (Eds.), Psychology & Work: Productivity, Change, and Employment (American Psychological Association). Head, C.W. (1997) Beyond Corporate Transformation: A Whole Systems Approach to Creating and Sustaining High Performance (Portland, Productivity Press). Kearney, W. (1997) A proven receipt for success: the seven elements of world-class manufacturing, National Productivity Review, 16, pp. 67-76. Locke, E.A. and Schweiger, D.M. (1979). "Participation in Decision-Making: One More Look" in B.M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 265-339. Pun, K.F. & Chin, K.S. (1998) Critical factors of employee empowered quality improvement in manufacturing enterprises, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Quality Management, Melbourne, Australia, February, pp. 138-144. Pun, K.F., Chin, K.S. & Chan, K.M. (1998) Employee involvement strategy for implementing quality management systems in Chinese enterprises, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual International Conference on Industrial Engineering Theories, Applications and Practice, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, December, PN047, pp. 1-8. Purser, R.E. & Steven, C. (1997) Involve employees at every level of strategic planning, Quality Progress, May, pp. 66-71. Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M.A. & Nason, S.W. (1997) A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction and strain, Journal of Management, 23, pp. 679-704. Taylor, Steplen. (2005). People Resourcing Management, CIPD. Tuckman, B.W. (1965). "Developmental Sequence in Small Groups," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63, No. 6, 1965, pp. 384-399. Read More