There are good and bad things to say about applying participative management on projects. While supporters praise the benefits, there are those who claim the risks don’t justify making the cross-over from traditional management approaches. In part, the differing opinions stem from the varying views as to what participative management really is
Just What is
Participative Management?
Participative management means participating in what? The problems? The decision? The profits? In everything (all the pain and pleasure of project management)?
What participative management isn’t may help shed light on the concept. It’s certainly not an autocratic approach where the “voice of the master” always prevails. Nor is it consultative management, where various parties are heard (topics may be discussed in detail), but major decisions are earmarked for upper management. Yet it’s not a pure democracy either, where the majority rules by voting.
In participate management, the hierarchy, in some form or another, still exists. Managers and other key project personnel, however, are required to use less position power and more of their abilities to influence, articulate and motivate. Participate management requires creating a group spirit, which transcends the boundaries of the project team and creates strong intellectual and emotional involvement, thus sharply boosting the odds for successful project completion.
Questions involving the scope of participation require special attention. For instance: Who is going to participate in fixing major goals? Does participation extend to sharing profits generated by the team’s efforts? Is participation limited to planning, or does it include group decision making and problem solving? Or does it go to the extreme of wide-spread involvement in all managerial and political questions that relate to the project? The varying degrees of participative management are all operable, provided they are fully understood by the participants. Special care, then, must be taken to define and communicate the scope of the proposed managerial philosophy.
The Up Side
Here’s how participative management contributes towards producing better results on projects.
Increases team spirit
This sparkling array of benefits raises the question, “Why should you manage any other way?” With so many pluses it would seem that a participative, consensus-driven form of leadership is the only way to go.
Yet, like in most good things, it’s not as easy as it looks. There’s another side to the coin
The Down Side
There are definite disadvantages in promoting greater involvement in managing projects. Here are a few:
Some of the down-side characteristics are inherent to the participative process (slow decision-making and planning processes, for example) and others are related to lack of preparation for consensus-oriented management (poor interpersonal skills is an example).
Participative management is only valid if it works. The negative side of running a project participatively may put the technique in question. Since drawbacks do exist. The participative approach must be effective to ensure, for instance, that the slow start caused by extensive participative planning is more than offset by the resultant reduced costs and quickened pace in the implementation stage. What can be done then to trim down the drawbacks so projects can reap the benefits offered by effective participative management?
Here’s How to Apply Participative Management on Projects
Managing participatively is a matter of style, not of instrumentation. The forms, procedures, plans, and schedules normally used on projects will continue to be required and may need little or no adaptation. How instruments will be applied, however, calls for an approach that will involve those who will perform the work. Here are some areas that require attention to effectively manage participatively.
PLANNING. Participation in planning sets the stage for involvement and team commitment throughout project implementation. To be effective, the involvement needs to start from upper management tiers and then filter down to other levels.
“Top down” planning must start at the strategic level, involving the project sponsor, the project manager, client, key team members and other project stakeholders. Items such as “the game plan”, outlining project management philosophy, and “the project plan” … defining scope, quality, cost, and time guidelines … need to be worked out in a consensus-type atmosphere. This same give-and-take approach needs to filter down to operational planning levels with particular emphasis on involving those who are going to perform the work.
In participate management, the planning process is as important as the plan itself because first, if the process is adequately participative, the resultant plan will be a good one; and second, if there is inadequate participation, the plan will not be followed.
TRAINING. Training for participative management is needed when parties are unaccustomed to working together, there is a change in managerial philosophy, or productivity is low. Appropriate topics are:
The event (workshop or other training event) may be more important than the subject being discussed. In other words, the chance to get together to talk and intermingle, may be a major factor in getting a participative approach off the ground.
PROBLEM SOLVING AND DECISION MAKING. Participative approaches for problem solving and decision making, give productive results because:
- 1) More people contribute and offer ideas, and
- 2) More people review and question ideas presented by others.
Success depends on the ability of the participants to interact effectively. Aside from reaching a better decision or finding a more appropriate solution, commitment of the participants is also attained during the process.
ROLE MODELING. For participative management to “happen”, prominent managers must assume roles as integrators, mentors, and motivators. Training programs can help bring out latent participative characteristics in managers and other team members. Yet the strongest of all influences is the “good example” given by a prominent manager, who has incorporated the participative approach in daily practice.
From the Participative “Bag of Tricks”
Participative managers develop techniques for involving and creating commitment on the part of team members and other project stakeholders. Here are three project-tested approaches.
Drafts for review. A classic technique for involving others is through the use of drafted documents. The documents are distributed to interested parties with requests for comments and suggestions. The ideas are then reviewed and negotiated, thus obtaining involvement.
Seed planting. To avoid “blowing” a great plan or program, it’s a good idea to plant ideas well in advance. “Trial balloons”, nurtured with literature from experts supporting a given position will help move the primary influencers in a favorable direction.
Participative events. Workshops, meetings and problem-solving sessions contribute toward developing participative skills. Experienced managers make it a point to schedule events that will create synergy among group members.
Conclusions
Greater participation by those directly and indirectly involved in projects is a growing trend both because of inherent desire to participate and because participative approaches have proven to be effective. In projects, where the foremost challenge is managing change across sometimes foggy boundaries, working together as a coordinated team represents the very essence of project management. Participative management, when applied as outlined, lays the groundwork for building effective teams and provides the synergistic atmosphere that leads to achieving project objectives.