Alternative Methods of Involvement of Employees in Decision Making - Essay Example

?Alternative Methods of Involvement of Employees in Decision Making Managers today are under pressure to engage employees in all aspects of their jobs. Generally, they must find ways to engage employees so they will stay working in the organization. Without engagement, many employees begin to slack in their duties (Farndale, van Ruiten, Killiher & Hope-Hailey, 2011; Gupta, 2011; Liu, Listen-Heyes & Ko, 2010). Companies are pressed to find alternative ways of engaging employees to motivate them to stay. Part of this engagement happens when employees have a voice in the decision making process. When they have a voice and understand that their ideas and opinions are valued and often taken into consideration when large decisions are made, the individuals have a better time of staying with the organisation. Employee Decision Making and Retention One of the ways to retain employees is to give them an opportunity to provide information about change and opportunities for advancement. Many employees bring their most creative and innovative ideas when they feel they have the opportunity to be heard. Chen, Ployhart et al. (2011) studied the issue of employee turnover and why this often happened. They found that an employee’s job satisfaction is central to whether they stay in on organisation or whether they leave. Part of job satisfaction came from the employee’s perception of their control within their job. Control was often felt by the opportunity to take part in specific decisions as they happened. Wilkinson and Fay (2011) add to this discussion by examining “employee voice” which they decfine as the opportunity for employees to express their opinions about what happens in their organisation. Many businesses create employee programs to foster this opportunity (Wilkinson and Fay, 2011). The authors emphasize that employees must participate in order to feel they are contributing to the overall well-being of the company. One of the ways to do this is by treating employees as stakeholders in the company. By treating them as stakeholders, employees feel valued. When they feel valued, this can “lead to improved employee attitudes and behaviours, loyalty, commitment, and more cooperative relations” (Wilkinson and Fay, 2011, p. 67). Farndale et al. (2011) add to this discussion on voice because they suggest that employees have more commitment to the organisation when they perceive that their voice is being heard. They also found that this perception was directly related to whether employees developed trust in senior management. The authors state that the employee must have a psychological attachment to the organization and its values. This means that employees must be actively involved with decision making and there must be an “exchange relationship” which means a “one party provides a benefit to the other, thereby causing an obligation to respond by providing something beneficial … “(Farndale et al., 2011, p. 115). In an exchange relationship in the organisation, employee voice is heard on a regular basis. The positive aspects of treating employees as stakeholders is that it makes them feel valued, makes them create a stronger commitment to the organisation and motivates them to contribute (Wilkinson and Fay, 2011). With employees as active participants in the decision making process, the managers would become more accountable in their financial practices as well as in their accounting of what they were charged to do (Chilosi and Damiani 2007). Some of the challenges to this method include that some employees may feel they do not have to work as hard because they are important to the organisation, and this attitude can lead to a lessening of productivity. Also, employees involved as stakeholders could create a challenge for outsiders who come into the firm to bring their assistance because they would know as much as the insiders. In some cases, managers can become disgruntled because they may perceive that they do not have as much power because all employees have a say (Chilosi and Damiani 2007). Vlachoutsicos (2011) suggests that employees must be cultivated to remain engaged in their work. The author suggests that creating work teams to make specific decisions is important to the organisation when it wants to keep dialog open. The decision making process is not a one time only situation, but rather is an on-going process. Vlachoutsicos suggests that some of the benefits of working with teams is that they bring together many ideas in one place so that decision making comes from a variety of sources. An open dialog allows the employee to be more involved in their role as an employee which helps them become more a part of the process instead of following their own self-interest (Vlachoutsicos, 2011). Another issue that this author suggests is that by having an open dialog, employees find an intrinsic reason to stay with the company and they are more prone to use their creativity. Some of the challenges with teams can include that there are different personalities on a the team and these personalities can create difficulty between members. Also, many businesses promote virtual teams because there are more people that can be brought together and they can be brought from different departments. The main challenge for virtual teams in decision making can be that they can feel isolated, content can be lost and often this leads to mistrust (Serrat, 2009). In a face to face situation, team members can feel isolated when there are some members who are more vocal than others. In order to maintain a delicate balance, all members of the team must have their voice heard. Stallard and Pankau (2010) suggest that employees must align their own behaviour with the goals of the organisation. This is often one of the first decisions that must make for their career. Making good decisions once they are hired is important in order to continue their careers. Stallard and Pankau point out that an employee will make good or bad decisions, based on how well the company engages them in the decision making process. The challenge for companies is that only one in ten employees are both engaged and aligned with the company’s strategy. When they are not engaged, their productivity decreases (Stallard and Pankau, 2010). Thus, engaging employees is more important today if the company wants to grow. Employees generally feel engaged when they feel a personal connection with the company. Usually those performers in a company who have power and influence (e.g. managers and upper management) are more engaged than the core employees. The result is that many core employees will come to the job for their pay check, stop caring about the company, and eventually stop communicating their ideas (Stallard and Pankau, 2010). Without active communication, decisions cannot be made at the deepest levels, which leads to “suboptimal decision making and organizational underperformance” (Stallard and Pankau, 2010, p. 51). According to these authors, there are several bridges that must be made if employees are to take part in the decision making process. These bridges create some of the benefits of this model and include: The Vision Bridge – this bridge builds a vision of the organisation that all employees can “see.” The goal is to help employees feel proud that they are a part of the organisation and that their ideas and concepts are important to the overall growth of the business (Stallard and Pankau, 2010). The Value Bridge – This bridge creates value for the employee both in their pay and in their duties of the company. This bridge encourages continued professional development and charges managers to help other employees make continuous improvements. Also, there may be programs or policies that need to change to also help employees stay engaged (Stallard and Pankau, 2010). The Voice Bridge – this bridge encourages employees at all levels to speak up and share their opinions and ideas. This allows upper management to show that they are approachable, and it encourages core employees to trust in the organisation (Stallard and Pankau, 2010). The most important aspects of this method is that it brings employees together rather than putting them at odds with each other. This promotes a higher quality of engagement for all employees and stops employees from feeling burned out. Also, in most situations, organisations find that the emotional factor is “four times as effective as rational factors when it comes to the amount of effort employees put into their work” ((Stallard and Pankau, 2010, p. 57). The challenges for this model can be that some employees can be introverted which may mean they will not always participate in the group, no matter what happens. These employees would need other incentives to promote their ideas (e.g. written assignments or allowed to write their opinions so the group can consider them at a later date). Another method of involving employees in decision making comes from Zhang and Bartol (2010). In their method, a link between empowering leadership and employee creativity was found. These authors studied empowerment and found that it was basically based on emotions or a “set of cognitions.” (Zhang and Bartol, 2010, p. 110). They found, like Stallard and Pankau (2010) that leadership was responsible for helping employees feel empowered rather than disconnected from the organisation. In order to keep them connected, they had to continue to empower their employees by giving them an opportunity to take part in the decision making process. By doing this, the employees found intrinsic reasons to stay with the company. The benefits of empowering leadership is often self-explanatory. In one respect, this allows employees to bring together their best ideas and know that these ideas will be taken into consideration (and possibly implemented) in future work within the company. Employees will also find the intrinsic value – that is, the value that is the reason they stay – that they have within the company which will cut down on the company’s loss of employees to their competitors. The challenge for this type of program is that employees are judged by their leadership ability and some employees who may be great leaders may be overlooked. This can especially be the case when employees do not speak up during meetings. Also, if leadership is responsible for empowering other leaders, they may only choose people who are like themselves. This again would mean that some employees would not be seen. Ayers (2009) suggests that engagement does not work in every situation. He states that in order for engagement to work, there needs to be five basic needs that all employees have in an organisation. These include: “the need for respect, the need to learn and grow, the need to be an ‘insider’, the need for meaning and the need to be on a winning team” Ayers, 2009, p. 10). When these five needs are met, the individual is more involved with the organisation, builds trust and creates stronger results for the company. Luebke (2011) agrees with Ayers in that there is more to helping employees make decisions than attempting to make them do what the company wants. Luebke suggests that better communication to employees and getting their input will make the difference. Communication should be centred on the end users (the employees) and that what is communicated should be personalized so that each individual can understand how the needs of the company fits into their own needs. An innovative way of helping employees become involved in decision making is to use stories. According to Gill (2011) using stories can be used to enhance employee loyalty and reinforce the values of the organisation. Stories can promote dialogue between all levels of the organisation and it builds employee trust. The challenges with this method can be that it is only one communication strategy and it must be used in conjunction with other types of communication to provide a shared meaning by all audiences. Also, good story tellers are not always good leaders so this has to be taken into consideration when storytelling is used. Gupta (2011) states that The Kotter Way is another positive way of encouraging employee involvement in decision making. He promotes Kotter’s framework that includes innovation through creating short wins, developing a positive strategy, establishing a sense of urgency and empowering employees for a broader base of action. In each situation, communication is done across all departments and employees have a say in all decisions. Conclusion There are a variety of methods that are used to bring employees into an understanding of the decision making process. In each situation, it seems to be important to make sure that employees are engaged in the company by allowing them to have a stake in decision making. Those employees who perceive that they have a voice in how the company moves forward are more prone to feel loyal to the company and to bring their best to their jobs. Those who do not feel they have a voice are often the ones who are not engaged, and are often the ones who will leave to go to a competitor. References Ayers, K 2009, 'Why engagement is not enough', Training & Development In Australia, pp. 10-11, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 January 2012. Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D. (2011). ‘The power of momentum: A new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction change and turnover intentions’. Academy Of Management Journal, 54(1), 159-181. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215089\ Chilosi, A. and Damiani, M. (2007). ‘Stakeholders vs. shareholders in corporate governance’. Available from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2334/1/MPRA_paper_2334.pdf Farndale, E, Van Ruiten, J, Kelliher, C, & Hope-Hailey, V 2011, 'The influence of perceived employee voice on organizational commitment: An exchange perspective', Human Resource Management, 50, 1, pp. 113-129, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 January 2012. Gill, R 2011, 'Using storytelling to maintain employee loyalty during change', International Journal Of Business & Social Science, 2, 15, pp. 23-32, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 January 2012. Gupta, P 2011, 'Leading innovation change - The Kotter Way', International Journal Of Innovation Science, 3, 3, pp. 141-150, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 January 2012. Kanter, R 2011, 'How great companies think differently', Harvard Business Review, 89, 11, pp. 66-78, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 January 2012. Luebke, B 2011, 'Driving employee decision making: Beyond a "get them to" mentality', Journal Of Financial Service Professionals, 65, 1, pp. 35-36, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 12 January 2012. Olivier Serrat, (2005). ‘Managing virtual teams’. Knowledge Solutions. 13 January 2011. Avaialable from http://www.adb.org/documents/information/knowledge-solutions/Managing-Virtual-Teams.pdf Stallard, M, & Pankau, J 2010, 'To boost performance, connect with the core', Leader To Leader, 2010, 57, pp. 51-57, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 13 January 2012. Vlachoutsicos, C. A. 2011, 'How to cultivate engaged employees', Harvard Business Review, 89, 9, pp. 123-126, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 12 January 2012. Wilkinson, A, & Fay, C 2011, 'New times for employee voice?', Human Resource Management, 50, 1, pp. 65-74, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 12 January 2012. Zhang, X, & Bartol, K 2010, 'Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement', Academy Of Management Journal, 53, 1, pp. 107-128, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 12 January 2012. Read More