Research to democratize the work place
18th May 2006 by Ryan Williams
To have successful change we need leadership. The one common element that defines leaders is that they have followers. To foster an organizational culture that maintains sustainable leadership employees have to be willing followers. Some of the key feelings employees need to sustain leadership is trust, ownership of decisions and a sense of self control. Traditional models of social action research have been used to achieve these ends. Practitioners have used qualitative participation, through workshops and focus groups. Consultants have used these practices and achieved limited results. The challenge with this model is the limited scalability. The amount of human and monetary resources needed to have broad-based participation is rarely practical, and as a result this model focuses on manager participation and perceived thought leaders. In our communities we would not accept this as full participation, and in our organizations we don’t have to accept this either.
Using employee surveys strategically we can achieve a much fuller participation. The researcher may still use a mixed methodology where workshops and focus groups inform the survey design. Planning is supported by survey results. The important principal to remember is how can we in a practical way involve all employees throughout our key decision making processes? This does not suggest asking every employee about everything, but rather developing a strategy where all employees are asked about important business issues once or twice a year. Equal access and participation will improve the key dynamics of leadership throughout the organizations, and communicators can offer leadership in advocating for these new channels of participation.
The social research models this concept is based on: Action Research
Action Science
In an earlier blog, I suggested we needed to be brave to conduct research. This article, “A major mistake that managers make” provides insight into why we may not want to gather possibly negative feedback. It also highlights the risks our organizations take when we don’t seek criticism of our decisions.
Ackoffcenter Blog Link
“But the only kind of mistake their organizations take into account are errors of commission. Then, to avoid censure one must try to minimize such errors. This is accomplished when managers do as little as possible. This is seldom a decision made consciously; rather it is a culturally imposed disposition of which most are unconscious.”
(Russell L. Ackoff, p.7)
June 12th, 2006 at 5:57 am
I’m no expert on this Ryan, but I have to wonder why it’s important to involve all employees throughout our key decision making processes. Why do we want to democratize the work place?
I don’t mind asking employees’ opinions–I certainly did when I had my own company–and I often received great feedback. But that does require educating them fully on the issues you’re going to ask them about, and while a certain amount of education is great, if all employees know everything I, as CEO know, then we’ll have a lot of duplication and not very much efficiency.
When you ask employees’ opinions, it is then incumbent upon you to report the findings and act upon them. When you decide to buck popular opinion, then you have to explain yourself.
I guess I’d want to democratize the work place when all employees have Harvard MBAs, and even then, maybe not.
But I do agree with you on this: You do have to be brave to do research, and you ought to know what your employees think, good or bad.
June 12th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Hi Marry,
Thanks for your feedback and discussion. Where does the power to change lie in an organization? Having an MBA and a title may allow you to come to a personal decision but nothing changes until others implement your decision. With an MBA approach maybe you would provide incentives or negatives to apply a new policy. This provides little in the way of leadership because you have done nothing to create followers, only compliance. Compliance is a short term phenomenon. To build a vital, sustainable organization you need to create more leaders.
Engaging full participation offers the opportunity for every employee to answer strategic questions. The role of senior managers to apply survey information is different than the janitor taking the survey, but that janitor at some point will make vital decisions to your business. I like to know if and how engaged all my employees are in our business. Two great examples of success using this philosophy are South West Airlines and Buckman Laboratories.
http://www.knowledge-nurture.com/
http://www.blogsouthwest.com/
Leadership is situational, in crisis we would limit the data needed to make decisions. Hopefully we don’t manage in crisis mode all of the time. We have predictable corporate planning cycles and when we involve employees in this process, they will be there for us when we need them.
“But that does require educating them fully on the issues you’re going to ask them about, and while a certain amount of education is great, if all employees know everything I, as CEO know, then we’ll have a lot of duplication and not very much efficiency”
I would not suggest all employees know everything. They must know the most important things to your businesses success and how they fit in. When trying to inform employees completely, how do you learn what they know about your business completely? Their behaviors and attitudes are your best long term measures of success.
Ryan
November 6th, 2006 at 7:52 am
Ryan, do volunteer survey’s by themselves, capture the true opinions of the entire target population? For example, your article, “Too, much email,” in IABC’s CW has a note about the accuracy of the survey data and nothing about validity. It was a volunteer survey. My two cents: There is a significant possibility that the data in the article is not truly representative of the entire international organization. The people that read the article will conclude that the data is valid.
November 6th, 2006 at 9:25 am
John,
The voluntary survey is the standard practice in opinion research. The methodology that we used for the email overload survey has limitations but it still has validity. Validity has varied degrees. All survey methodologies have limitations, as did the one we used for the CW article. We sent one email to the entire population of the IABC membership. Over 1800 people from around the world responded to that invitation. When comparing our data set against the demographics provided by the association the data had no obvious bias. I am comfortable with the analysis we provided in the article. To be a purist, this data is only the opinion of these 1800 individuals at that specific point in time given the limitations of the scales we provided. Even with this very narrow view point, I would suggest we can learn a lot about how these IABCers use their email. This is a blog, so if you wish to provide this audience with better distribution methods feel free. If your only aim is to point out limitation in methodologies you can do that for every survey conducted.
Ryan
January 20th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Employees come to work with an implicit trust that their managers are always working for the best interest of the company and its employees. That trust should not and cannot ever be taken for granted. Look what is happening today. It is no longer “What’s good for the company is good for the manager.” It has become “What’s good for the manager is good for the company.” Top executives have totally lost sight of this phenomenon and are allowing managers to run amok for their own personal agendas.
Several years ago I wrote a book on the subject of workplace culture and employee morale. It is as relevant today as it was then. Employee morale is directly linked to the interaction of employees with line managers who are charged with executing the policies and strategies of companies. Unfortunately, many of these managers subvert the good intentions of the organization to meet their own personal goals and agendas at the expense of their peers and subordinates. This management subculture is the result of a corporate culture of ignorance, indifference and excuse. Better corporate level leadership is the key. Read more in “160 Degrees of Deviation: The Case for the Corporate Cynic.”
Jerome Alexander