Frank Heller

Organizational participation : myth and reality

Introduction 1. An Overview 2. Organizational Participation: A View from Psychology 3. Organization Theory and Participation 4. Collective Bargaining, Unions, and Participation 5. Playing the Devils Advocate: Limits to Influence Sharing in Theory and Practice 6. Participation Works - If Conditions are Appropriate 7. Myth and Reality: Valediction

Participation and Power: A Critical Assessment

A partir d’un examen rapide de la litterature concernee, cet article evalue l’etendue de la participation et du partage du pouvoir dans les organisations modernes. De ce domaine emane un optimisme que les resultats confirment mal. Les travaux empiriques montrent qu’il n’y a en realite qu’un tres faible partage de l’influence et du pouvoir dans la plupart des organisations modernes. On tente de donner un debut d’explication en suivant quatre pistes theoriques et methodologiques. Tout d’abord, il est recommande d’etablir une distinction claire entre la participation, c’est-a-dire prendre part a une activite, et le pouvoir qui implique une certaine influence sur l’activite. Deuxiemement, les recherches sur la participation s’appuient rarement sur un modele theorique. Des trois modeles presentes dans l’article, trois sont adaptes a ce champ de recherches. Troisiemement, il est possible d’attribuer l’absence de partage de l’influence dans les organisations modernes a l’impossibilite de detecter les variables pertinentes, par exemple les competences. Enfin, le plan de la plupart des recherches sur la participation est etroitement centre sur un ou deux microechelons, est transversal et mecanique alors que le sujet requiert une approche systemique ou holistique a niveaux multiples. Les avantages d’une solution systemique sont illustres avec des exemples. Bien que la confirmation empirique exige des etudes complementaires, elle fait entrevoir les ouvertures, basees sur la theorie et les donnees, qu’offre une solution “ideal-type”. Through a brief review of the relevant literature, this paper is concerned with assessing the extent of participation and power-sharing in modern organisations. The field is imbued with optimism that is not well supported by results. The empirical evidence suggests that there is, in reality, very little distribution of influence and power in most modern organisations. An explanation is attempted by tackling four theoretical-methodological issues. In the first place it is advisable to make a clear distinction between participation, meaning taking part in an activity, and power, which implies a degree of influence over the activity. Second, participation research is rarely based on a theoretical model. The paper describes three models, two of which are appropriate for this area of research. Third, it is possible to attribute the lack of influence sharing in modern organisations to a failure to identify significant contingencies, for instance competence. Fourth, the design of most research on participation is narrowly focused on one or two micro levels, is cross-sectional and mechanistic although the subject matter requires a multi-level holistic or systems approach. The advantage of systemic design is illustrated by examples. Although the empirical evidence requires further support, it reveals possibilities, based on theory and data that allow an “ideal type” solution to be put forward.

Influence at Work: A 25-Year Program of Research

Organization of any kind, from prehistorichunting societies to companies working through theworldwide web, operate with a distribution of influenceand power among their members. This distribution of influence has consequences at three levels: forthe people working in the organization, for theorganization itself, and, from time to time, for membersof society outside the organization. A series of action- and policy-oriented projects on thedistribution of influence were developed by or incollaboration with the Centre for Decision MakingStudies of The Tavistock Institute over a quarter of acentury. They started with a seven-country comparativeresearch on top management decision making, followed bytwo 12-country studies on Industrial Democracy and a5-year longitudinal program in seven companies in three countries. These and two longitudinalprojects in Britian, one on a motor car manufacturer andthe other on an airport, used a similar conceptualframework. The article draws on the evidence from this program of work, describes the evolvingtheoretical model and concludes that organizationalinfluence sharing appears to have made only limitedprogress during the last 50 years. Four explanations are put forward: overidealistic expectations;a tendency to ignore the need for certain necessaryantecedents, like competence; a tendency to act as ifinfluence sharing is not subject to contingencies like the nature of tasks; and probably mostimportantly, the almost universal tendency to designinfluence sharing measures through uncoordinatedmechanistic social engineering.

Decisions in Organizations: A Three-Country Comparative Study.

Introduction Theoretical Considerations Design of the Research Methods and Instruments Participation in Operational Decisions Medium- and Long-Term Decision-Making Qualitative Material to Illustrate the Process of Longitudinal Decision-Making Conclusion

Patterns of power distribution in managerial decision making in Chinese and British industrial organizations

This article is one of three reports about the results of a Sino-British joint research project on managerial decision making in eleven Chinese companies and ten British companies. Forty managers and twenty trade union leaders from both manufacturing and service industries participated in the study. Data about decision-making patterns in eighteen different decision tasks in the organizations were collected. The results showed that there were interesting organizational and cultural differences in decision-making patterns in the two countries between manufacturing and service industries, between management and trade union groups, among short-, medium- and long-term decisions and across organizational levels. There were clear shifts of the decision-making power across organizational levels depending upon the type of decision tasks. A model of decision power shift was proposed in terms of the effects of organizational and cultural factors on patterns of organizational decision making. The implications of the ...

Sociotechnology and the Environment

The founders of the sociotechnical model perceived its relevance at the macro level of the community, at the meso level of whole organizations, as well as at the micro level of the primary work systems, but it is at the primary work system that most applications have been carried out. An efficient micro level sociotechnical solution may still cause the technology to have a harmful impact on the environment. An increasing popular awareness of environmental damage due to certain technologies leads one to consider an extension of the Important joint optimization concept to a systemic heuristic device called the socioecotechnical model in which the intra and extra-organizational factors can be jointly assessed and optimized.

A Longitudinal Study in Participative Decision-Making

A framework and method of a three-country comparative study on the process of participative decision-making is described. Research methods, models, and instruments are developed in the context of a longitudinal de-sign. The major hypotheses relate to the situationally determined relation between power decentralization, skill utilization, and effectiveness. The four-year study hopes to provide at least partial answers to some theoretical as well as practical questions in a field of considerable current controversy in Europe.

Leadership and Power in a Stakeholder Setting

Within stated limits, the paper explores the leadership and power-sharing role of boards of directors and top managers of joint stock companies in relation to a stakeholder concept. To whom is the top leadership group responsible and accountable? The paper examines this controversial question in relation to three stakeholder groups: owners of shares, employees below the top leadership, and customers. The answer to this question can be discussed in relation to values, legal obligations or pragmatic claims of efficiency. Differences are observed between the views of Anglo-American and continental countries, with the latter taking a broader stakeholder perspective and giving more emphasis to the role of law. Empirical evidence is presented relating to the impact of legal and formal structures and other conditions supporting leadership practices for sharing power with employees as stakeholders. The possibility for customers to exercise influence is more limited, except through the mechanism of the market. It ...

Reassessing the Work Ethic: A New Look at Work and Other Activities

Abstract The aim of this paper is to argue that psychological research on the work ethic, or work centrality, uses too narrow a focus for understanding shifts in behaviour and attitudes over time. The appropriate unit of analysis is activity. Working is a subcategory of this larger unit. Six areas of activity are distinguished: education and training in early life, paid tasks or work, updating education throughout life, unpaid tasks or voluntary activity, education of the third age, and active or passive leisure. Historical, sociological, and anthropological evidence is reviewed and related to the psychological analysis of the meaning of working. It emerges that work is a controversial topic; it is extensively praised by some and condemned by others. Few would deny that paid work is a necessary way of obtaining basic and supplementary human requirements under present-day circumstances, but the differential conditions and constraints under which it is carried out are not always accepted as a necessary coro...

Group Feedback Analysis as a Method of Action Research

Drucker (1969) claims that the coming Age of Discontinuity will lead to further growth in the discussion of organizational change. Discussion, however, is not enough. It will have to be followed by action. Many people who talk about change think of it as applying to others rather than to themselves. It is natural that organizational change should tend to be welcomed by those who will benefit and resisted by those who will have to give up established attitudes and behavior. In terms of exchange theory (Strauss, 1970), the latter will need to be rewarded so that they are motivated to change. Rewards may be tangible. They may also be related to less material needs, such as self-esteem, participation, and autonomy, or a desire to operate on the basis of valid information.