If it is
participatory cannot be restrictive.
Following
a previous article, a reader, whom I thank for his speech, he sent me a message
to ask about the difference between integrate employees into the company
management and get them away from decision-making, to avoid excessive
interference that end generates unnecessary internal conflicts. He asked me to
assess the participatory management or intelligent direction, combining
efficiency with current management trends, harmonizing parts to improve performance.
Logically, the concept that the idea of proximity generates misunderstandings and, therefore, avoidable intrusions, but does not have an overall exceptional application, as in any other area of life. In fact, only applies to a very small number of people, those that tend to confuse the terms of the employer-employee relationship. Hence assume that we are talking about a common behavior to all workers, certainly, as I understand it, is not reasonable or sustainable.
|
Links to other articles
- Motivation - Emotional abuse of failure - The weight of the word - Identify your resources and triumph - The tyranny of customers - Good Manager |
We can
say that the company is responsible for introducing the concept of
participation among their employees accurately and correctly. We are talking
about a form of work not too common, so anyone who joins the company for the
first time does not have to know or assume beforehand. Then it is a process of
change in mentality, where misinterpretation of the basics feeds the confusion
and people overstep mechanically when acting, thus promoting inappropriate
assumption of prerogatives. There can be no feeling that everything is allowed
and, at the same time imposing limitations to prevent certain privileges. Or is
participatory or not, plain and simple.
I think all participants must understand and accept the efficiency of such management. If necessary, the company should provide a section of training in the management of the new strategy of internal relations. No one can expect people to change simply as a matter of faith or friendship, everyone needs techniques and strategies to adapt to changes and, especially, need to see the positive outcome of the action. If you intend to establish a line based on participation must be so from the first day the employee assumes his duties, because that's the way to avoid the contradictions generated by misunderstanding of the strategy. Otherwise you will hear very often that of "have told me one thing and now another."
Besides mobilize workers around the new idea and encourage them to practice the approach, the results should be organized, the consequences, acting on the errors and start again. We are talking about creating a circle where employees can bring all their worth for the good of the company and, in turn, must learn to respect their positions; must act without skipping hierarchical boundaries or make inappropriate decisions. That's pretty complicated, especially in small companies, where the number of workers is limited and continuous functions tend to overlap.
However, the integration of the two driving forces of the company, the employee and the employer has to overcome this difficulty for true conjunction and the most favorable results. Because if participation is allowed only in certain specific moments, the person is likely to feel frustrated because he had acquired a new vision of its role in the business, and now, when he had to make, the drubbing he received no his input is needed.
Companies must embrace change gradually; you can not propose a participatory possibility and restrict it in terms of benefits or special considerations. In conclusion I will say that it is always easier to be authoritarian rather than participatory, so it must be fought to death for the second.
I think all participants must understand and accept the efficiency of such management. If necessary, the company should provide a section of training in the management of the new strategy of internal relations. No one can expect people to change simply as a matter of faith or friendship, everyone needs techniques and strategies to adapt to changes and, especially, need to see the positive outcome of the action. If you intend to establish a line based on participation must be so from the first day the employee assumes his duties, because that's the way to avoid the contradictions generated by misunderstanding of the strategy. Otherwise you will hear very often that of "have told me one thing and now another."
Besides mobilize workers around the new idea and encourage them to practice the approach, the results should be organized, the consequences, acting on the errors and start again. We are talking about creating a circle where employees can bring all their worth for the good of the company and, in turn, must learn to respect their positions; must act without skipping hierarchical boundaries or make inappropriate decisions. That's pretty complicated, especially in small companies, where the number of workers is limited and continuous functions tend to overlap.
However, the integration of the two driving forces of the company, the employee and the employer has to overcome this difficulty for true conjunction and the most favorable results. Because if participation is allowed only in certain specific moments, the person is likely to feel frustrated because he had acquired a new vision of its role in the business, and now, when he had to make, the drubbing he received no his input is needed.
Companies must embrace change gradually; you can not propose a participatory possibility and restrict it in terms of benefits or special considerations. In conclusion I will say that it is always easier to be authoritarian rather than participatory, so it must be fought to death for the second.
image: @morguefile
Tweetear
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
Escribe un comentario. Solo pido moderación y respeto.