Employees have to feel that what they say counts for something. The best suggestions for improving production processes, for example, come from employees who work everyday on the assembly line. Sales people know what the customers want because they are in daily contact. Customer service representatives are acquainted firsthand with the technical and functional problems that can spell future marketing disasters. All these employees have valuable information that must be shared with the organization's decision makers. The information will be shared if employees feel management regards them as legitimate participants in the enterprise. Employees know they are valued participants when their suggestions are implemented, their questions answered, and their concerns recognized.
Sometimes, however, employee participation is not actively deterred by management but rather by the corporate structure, the competitive business environment, or environmental regulatory agencies. Highly formalized, bureaucratic organizations, for example, through their complex reporting procedures, encumbering paperwork, and labyrinth of regulatory guidelines, tend to discourage active participation and thereby stifle the free flow of information. For instance, if the paperwork in implementing an improvement is overwhelming, employees rarely submit suggestions. People opt for the path of least resistance. If the burden always rests with the action initiator, few will initiate action. Thus, bureaucratic systems discourage participation by imposing penalties on initiative. It's easier to do nothing and suffer a tolerable inconvenience than to pursue corrective action and incur an intolerable cost of time, patience, and energy.
Taking action is the key, therefore, to encouraging employee participation. Those for whom the message is intended must act upon the information they receive. Managers, supervisors, and team leaders must listen to grievances, complaints, or suggestions and respond both in word and deed. Communication that results simply in talking about situations but in doing nothing about them is a waste of everyone's time. Open communication puts both sides at risk, however, because in the process of recognizing employees as participants, supervisors must open themselves up to criticism, must explain their actions, and must actually correct difficult situations. And as participants, supervised employees must be willing to articulate difficulties for which they share responsibility with management. Ultimately, employees and supervisors must work collaboratively to ensure successful implementation of communicated intentions.
Sometimes, however, employee participation is not actively deterred by management but rather by the corporate structure, the competitive business environment, or environmental regulatory agencies. Highly formalized, bureaucratic organizations, for example, through their complex reporting procedures, encumbering paperwork, and labyrinth of regulatory guidelines, tend to discourage active participation and thereby stifle the free flow of information. For instance, if the paperwork in implementing an improvement is overwhelming, employees rarely submit suggestions. People opt for the path of least resistance. If the burden always rests with the action initiator, few will initiate action. Thus, bureaucratic systems discourage participation by imposing penalties on initiative. It's easier to do nothing and suffer a tolerable inconvenience than to pursue corrective action and incur an intolerable cost of time, patience, and energy.
Taking action is the key, therefore, to encouraging employee participation. Those for whom the message is intended must act upon the information they receive. Managers, supervisors, and team leaders must listen to grievances, complaints, or suggestions and respond both in word and deed. Communication that results simply in talking about situations but in doing nothing about them is a waste of everyone's time. Open communication puts both sides at risk, however, because in the process of recognizing employees as participants, supervisors must open themselves up to criticism, must explain their actions, and must actually correct difficult situations. And as participants, supervised employees must be willing to articulate difficulties for which they share responsibility with management. Ultimately, employees and supervisors must work collaboratively to ensure successful implementation of communicated intentions.
Comments
Post a Comment