High Involvement Management as a Management Tool to Intensify Work - Essay Example

High Involvement Management is primarily used as a management tool to intensify work High Involvement Management is primarily used as a management tool to intensify work Basing on the demand control model, it can be argued that high involvement management is a tool applied by managers to intensify work. The validity of this statement is better discussed with a brief review of the model as well as the tool and checking the manner that managers apply high involvement management techniques to affect the work output. The relation of this tool based on the job demand control model will assist in resolving the issue. This treatise critically evaluates the argument that high involvement management (HIM) is a management tool used to intensify work. According to Woods (2008), high involvement management as a management tool is focused on employee involvement in a particular work structure. The technique is mainly centered on the employee being allowed to make essential decisions regarding their jobs, as well as being part of the business. When looked at from a varying perspective, the employees are granted role empowerment. Bockerman, Bryson & Illmakunnas (2012) assert that employees who experience HIM have higher wellbeing and are less likely to absent from their duties when compared to like employees who are not subjected to the same conditions. Job demand control (JDC) model is founded on the fact that the value of employees in an organization is indispensable (Zirwatul, Ibrahim and Ohtuska, 2012, 11). According to these authors, the success of an organization needs to be focused on the characteristics of the job as well as the wellbeing of the employees. Karasek and Theorell (1990) coined the job demand control support (JDCS) model that relates the characteristics of the job to wellbeing. From the brief definitions discussed, it is evident that JDC and JDCS models relate to high involvement management technique directly and in respect to the wellbeing of the employees. This brings back the thesis question; is high involvement management a tool that is used by managers to intensify work? Karasek (1979) points out that job demands are the stressors involved in completing an assigned workload. Such stressors are psychological and may relate to tasks that were not expected or a conflict between personal issues and the job (291). It is directly evident that work output by an employee who is stressed by such issues cannot be equal to a sober-minded employee who has no issue disturbing them. Karasek had an additional concept of latitude that that is based on decision authority and skill discretion (1979). Decision authority connects with HIM’s authority of the employee where the employee is empowered to make decisions that are directly related to the job. Basing the argument on the two constructs of JDC and HIM, the crucial point under discussion is empowering of the employee. At the same time, there is an indirect agenda that is being overlooked other than the wellbeing of the employee; this is the continuity of the job and at a good pace. In the definition of HIM, one of the factors that come up as a result of the application of this tool is reduced absenteeism. In cases where absenteeism is unavoidable, employees usually cover up for their peers in a manner that the employer will not bear an extra cost of replacing the particular employee temporarily (Woods, 2008). Essentially, the end result will be better work intensification. Motivated employees with a better wellbeing and a feel for concern for their job will work more intensely and produce better results. HIM will have led to the manager achieve immensely (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg and Kalleberg, 2000). According to Lawler (1986), the framework for high involvement in management, as coined by Lawler, has been seen to set keen focus on power. Empowering of the employees to make job related decisions is an action that is directly related to power. Employees, in a HIM environment, are granted power with which they can decide on issues that directly influence the practice of the organizations. They can also influence the direction as well as the enactment of policies. In order to realize this power, managers are required to decentralize some of the resources of the organization; knowledge, rewards and information (Lawler, Mohrman and Ledford, 1998). In this regard, knowledge increases the understanding and contribution of the employees to organizational performance. The knowledge is inclusive of technical expertise, business acumen, decision making skills and interpersonal skills. Rewards are adjusted to align with better behavior, increased output and better job performance capabilities. Information regards the manner in which the organization is performing. This may include customer satisfaction data, production data and the position of the companies in relation to other companies (Mohrman, Lawler & Mohrman, 1992). With the facets of power discussed, high involvement management allows the employees to get restructured in a manner that leads to high organizational performance (Lawler, 1986). Getting back to the thesis statement under analysis, HIM is definitely a tool used by managers to increase the intensity of work. Work intensity, once increased or improved, leads to an eventual increase in production and thus better organizational performance. Lawler (1986) posits that empowering employees to make more organizational decisions is the concept of HIM and leads to increased organizational performance and thus more work intensity. Mohr and Zoghi (2008) performed an explicit study of high involvement management and wellbeing. The study, amongst others, posits that HIM and wellbeing are in constant global use as a measure of employee satisfaction in their jobs. The job satisfaction is realized through improvement of such aspects as utilization of skills, personal development and autonomy. The end result is increased efficiency and more productive employees, thereby leading to a greater output and productivity for the organization. Demand control theory has hypothesized that when workers assume greater job control and discretion, there is a reduction in psychological strain and as thus, they are able to manage stricter job demands in a better and improved way. In the same regard, high performance work systems are known to reduce job related stress (Walton, 1985). There are varied measures of high performance systems, but most focus on the link between the system and wellbeing, which in most cases is discretion. Using Fried and Ferris’ (1987) arguments, enriched jobs have profound effects on the employees’ wellbeing due to the increased autonomy. At the same time, when employees lack discretion in their jobs, negative effects are bound to be experienced. Enriched jobs, which, in this case are due to high involvement management, have a greater propensity of increasing skills’ utilization, variety of the jobs as well as personal development of the employees. When employees feel that they are valued in their organization, there is high potent for positive impact on both the job output and the employee wellbeing. This direct relation between job enrichment and wellbeing has foundations similar to Karasek’s JDC model. High involvement management may be as a result of various attempts by the management to ensure job satisfaction. As earlier discussed, it can be through the lengthening of the job roles and giving the employees more decision making capabilities. With such improvements, there is a general perception of dominance and control over their jobs thus increasing commitment to their roles. HIM induces teamwork to an organization through the flexibility realized. According to Warr (2007, 87), teamwork enhances social contact and thus there is eventual satisfaction that plays a big part in reducing psychological stress, increasing wellbeing. With HIM increasing the adaptation to the environment, employees get a higher sense of job security and feel that they are in some good career, a notion that eventually leads to increased organizational output (Dormann and Zapf, 2002). HIM increases the employees’ attainment of necessary skills that are vital for increased job satisfaction and enhanced ability to learn more. The employees feel a sense of respect and value once they are involved in management decision making through HIM. This in turn assists an organization in getting more participative employees. Warr (2007) points out that the employees perceive a social value for their work, which they eventually get very close to leading to more satisfaction and a greater work output. High involvement management has been adopted in various countries, Britain included. The tool has a close association with total quality management and to some extent also related to lean production (De Menezes and Wood, 2006). The usage of HIM is dependent on the kind of organization at stake. Many opponents have argued that it is a way of doing away with trade unions. Fact remains that HIM is closely associated with higher work productivity, in liaison with JDC (Woods and De Menezes, 2008, 650). Karasek’s (1990) model of job demand control, on the other hand, has been realized to have similar foundations to HIM. The model safeguards employees against job demands’ consequences such as psychological strain and stress, and helps create an aura of satisfaction that leads to the employees gaining new skills and getting ready to engage in more job related challenges. Once the work is done in this manner, the thesis statement will have been reinforced; work will have been intensified (Kain and Jex, 240). Rodriguez, Bravo and Peiro (2001, 98) support the fact that Job demand control (Karasek, 1979; Karasek and Theorell, 1990), ar vastly used and accepted as benchmarks for explaining employee satisfaction. The authors, however, posit that there may be some contradictions and simplicity; their investigation found that increased support leads to greater production. They also suggest a need for internal control locus in employees for the social support encouraged in JDC and HIM to be beneficial. Conclusion High involvement management is part of the larger high involvement work practices. JDC and HIM have seen to be directly related to improving the wellbeing and thus the job satisfaction levels of employees in various industries. The improvement in work performance, at the same time, has been seen to have some direct relations. Increased satisfaction leads to increased output and a greater work efficiency. Konrad (2006) summarized the effectiveness of high involvement frameworks in job environments. According to the author, a 1992 decision by Saturn Corporation, a part of General Motors to divide all employees into teams, simplify rules and alow the union to participate in decision making in equal shares with the management, saw the organization become the leading brand in motor vehicle satisfaction, quality and reliability the world over. A similar agreement between Chrysler and its employees saw 76 % of Chrysler’s employees adapt rapidly and vote for the new system against the old one. Konrad (2006) also quotes a study done on fifteen mills dealing with steel. In the industry, the mills that utilized high involvement work systems showed superior performance. Additional support arises from the American government on the essence of high performance practices (U.S. Department of Labor, 1993). HIM might not be as widespread as the original advocates of the system thought. The system, however, has had immense changes in the modern workplace management and the manner of management thinking. There have been positive effects for those institutions that have embraced it and some of the direct consequences have been mentioned above, with examples. As a tool, managers should consider emulating those who already adopted the strategy and assimilated it into their own organizations, where a dire increase in output is requisite. Given Konrad’s (2006) observations and the facts highlighted throughout this treatise, HIM is a field that has had positive impacts on various organizations. From the improvement of employees’ wellbeing to enrichment of the job procedures to increased employee satisfaction, organizations that have embraced this tool for their duties can attest to one conclusion; work intensification. I can, therefore, conclude by confidently stating that high involvement management, as looked through the eyes of job demand control, is primarily used by managers as a tool to intensify work. References Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg P. and Kalleberg, A. 2000. Manufacturing Advantage: Why High Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Cornell University Press, Ithica, NY. Bockerman, P, Bryson A & Illmakunnas, P, 2012. Does high involvement management improve worker wellbeing? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84 (2), pp 660-680. De Menezes, L. and Wood, S. 2006, ‘The reality of flexible work systems in Britain, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 1–33. Dormann, C. and Zapf, D. 2002. Social Work stressors at work, irritation, and depression: Accounting for unmeasured third variables in a multi-wave study, Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 75, 33-58. Fried, Y., and Ferris, G. 1987, The validity of the job characteristics model. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322. Kain, J. adnd Jex, S, 2010, Karaseks (1979) job demands-control model: A summary of current issues and recommendations for future research, New Developments in Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches to Job Stress, 8, pp.237 – 268. Karasek, R 1979, Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quartely, 24 (285), 308. Karasek, R and Theorell, T, 1990. Healthy work: stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life, Basic Books, New York, NY. Konrad, A. 2006. Engaging employees through high involvement work practices. Ivey Business Journal [online]. Accessed 17th March 2015. Lawler, E 1986, High involvement management. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A. and Ledford, G.E., Jr., 1998, Strategies for High Performance Organizations, Jossey-Bass. Mohr, R., and Zoghi, C. 2008, High-involvement management work design and job satisfaction. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61, 275–296. Mohrman, S., Lawler, E., & Mohrman, A. 1992, Applying employee involvement in schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 347-360. Rodriguez, I., Bravo, J. and Peiro, J., 2001, The Demands-Control-Support model, Locus of control and job dissatisfaction: a longitudinal study, Work & Stress, 15, pp 97-114. U.S. Department of Labor 1993, High Performance Work Practices. Department of Labor, Washington, U.S. Walton, R.1985, ‘From ‘Control’ to ‘Involvement’ in the Workplace’, Harvard Business Review, 63, 77–84. Warr, P. 2007, Work, Happiness, and Unhappiness, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey. Wood, S 2008, “High involvement management”, in Clegg S, & Bailey J (eds), International encyclopaedia of organizational studies, SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA. Wood, S. and de Menezes, L. 2008, Comparing Perspectives on High Involvement Management and Organizational Performance across the British Economy. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 639––683. Zirwatul, R, Ibrahim A and Ohtuska, K, 2012. Review of the job demand control and job demand control support models: Elusive moderating predictor effects and cultural implications. Southeast Asia Psychological Journal, 1, pp 10-21. Read More