Participative Leadership

A paper I wrote for a leadership class not too long ago. Re-read it, and thought it had some good "nuggets" so I thought I would post it. 

Abstract

            Each leader has a different leadership style. As culture has changed, so also has the approach to leadership communication. As the modern culture has shifted to a more social perception and attitude toward their work organizations, leaders have adapted to a more participative form of leadership that allows subordinates more creative control and liberty over their tasks and goals. Theory Y, developed by George McGregor, asserts that every many is able to join their own talents and skills with that of the organization for the mutual benefit of both parties. This theory, while often not perfect in implementation, can have positive effects when applied to the academic world, particularly in student leadership. Participative leadership in an academic setting promotes the guided growth and knowledge of the student, and better prepares them for careers in their respective fields. 

Keywords: Participative leadership, empowerment, self-efficacy, Theory Y, personal commitment

 Participative Leadership and the Student

Just as each workplace has a different organizational culture, so does each leader have a different style of leadership that affects that culture. Many leaders take an authoritarian route and have the final say over everything that occurs in the office or on the assembly line. This style of leadership is useful for maintaining productivity, but it prevents the subordinates from expressing any kind of creativity or further developing skills. If the leader fails to see the potential in one or more of their subordinates, then that person’s talents and skills goes unused and remains undeveloped. In the past, this style of leadership has been the dominant train of thought. Leaders may work to develop skills and promote growth and knowledge among workers, but at the end of the day the workplace was largely about maintaining productivity and running a “tight ship.”

Today, we live in a very different culture. Exponential growth in communication technologies and systems designed to improve workflow have created a much more social organizational culture. As Halal et al states (1981), “within the past few years many signs of widespread technological and social change have appeared which seem to indicate that participative management should be taken more seriously” (p. 20). Now, three decades later, those technological changes have forever changed the way that we communicate with each on a professional, and even on a personal level. These changes demand a different approach to leadership. Subordinates no longer just want to have a job, instead they desire to be involved and feel like they are a part of a community. They desire a role in that community that is the best use of the skills and talents they have to offer; one that gives weight and merit to their voice. This changing perception of the workplace among the culture has created a different leadership style, known as participative leadership, which allows for freedom of thought, collaboration, and shared responsibility for a healthier organizational culture.

            There is likely not a better place to explore and encourage participative leadership than in an academic setting. Many school systems on the elementary level have already begun developing programs that encourage student leadership. In these schools, they utilize a “new democratic model of leading… [that is] less about leadership than about leaderful action—a model of leadership that celebrates advocacy, champions collaboration, encourages facilitation, embraces creativity, promotes sustainability, and fosters personal responsibility for civic engagement” (McKibben, 2004, p. 81). These school systems are capitalizing on a theory created half a century ago that speaks to the nature within us all to be leaders, at the very least, of our own individual lives.  

Theory Y

Theory Y was presented by George McGregor in 1960. McGregor asserts that his theory is an attempt to understand human nature, and not a guide for a certain management style or ideal. While it was not his original assertion, Theory Y has nevertheless been married to the idea of participative leadership. “Theory Y states, in essence, that man is capable of integrating his own needs and goals with those of the organization; that he is not inherently lazy and indolent; that he is by nature capable of exercising self-control and self-direction, and that he is capable of directing his efforts toward organizational goals” (Schein, 1975, p.20). Contrary to the authoritarian view (Theory X) that is more autocratic in nature, Theory Y assumes that subordinates desire to take an active role in their workplace, and that a more collaborative approach to management does not negatively affect productivity. By allowing subordinates to participate in the control and management of their tasks, it creates a more personally committed and self-sufficient employee.  

Participative leadership requires an extensive amount of communication and willingness to compromise. As Schein (1975) states, “A Theory Y manager is prepared to deal with task-related conflict and to seek integrative solutions if the organization is prepared to adjust work flows, organizational structure, and so forth to permit the solution to be implemented” (p. 29). A leader that seeks to use a participative style will serve the role of mediator. Overall goals will be communicated, and tasks will be given based on the strengths of each contributing member. Participative leaders take a proactive role in the work of their subordinates and seek to draw out their skills in order to integrate them into the overall goals and methods of the organization. The participative leader, utilizing Theory Y, will not hover and dictate tasks, but will cultivate a relationship that seeks to draw on the person’s predisposition to desire involvement.

Empowerment

            Lee et al (2001) define empowerment as, “the psychological state of a subordinate perceiving four dimensions of meaningfulness, competence, self-determination, and impact, which is affected by empowering behaviors of the supervisor” (p. 686). Simply put, empowerment occurs when subordinates feel and act as if the supervisor has enough trust in them to complete tasks and goals. Empowerment is not immediate among all subordinates. Sometimes, there is a lack of confidence or even a lack of competence. Each case will be different, because each employee is different and communicates differently. This is why it is essential for the leader to take an active role in the organizational culture, and take the time to get to know each employee’s strengths and weaknesses. Continuing to pursue an empowering culture will lead to employees that are confident and take pride in their work. Empowerment allows for a sense of ownership among subordinates because they are made to feel like each task is custom-fitted for their skill set. Empowering subordinates can have a positive effect on productivity and quality.  

Self-Efficacy

The employee that is continually encouraged and empowered in their position will begin to gain a sense of self-efficacy. Bandura et al (1989) state, “that self-efficacy is belief in one’s capability to mobilize motivation, cognitive resources and series of actions needed to meet given situational demands” (p. 806). Subordinates that have a high self-efficacy do not need to be constantly coddled or reassured of tasks or worth. Instead, they are confident that they have the skill-set necessary to complete the tasks given to them, and they know how to make it happen. These employees will not be satisfied with merely completing a task, but will seek ways to improve workflows, communications, and methods. They will constantly be improving themselves and their environment. From a leadership perspective, this kind of employee becomes invaluable. They confront issues before they become problems and are proactive in their work and tasks. Management truly becomes participative when an employee is competent, confident, and seeks out ways to improve.

Personal Commitment

            Participative leadership assumes and encourages a personal commitment from the subordinate. When leaders are proactive and seek to empower, train, encourage, and stimulate growth in their subordinates, they are essentially making an investment. The Theory Y leader understands that “most organization members are capable of contributing more than demanded by their present jobs and thus represent untapped potential for the organization, potential which the capable manager develops and invests in improved performance” (Miles et al, 1971, p. 50). The true test of the participative method then comes with how much that subordinate is willing to return that commitment. The employee that is not committed will feel as though they are at just another job. The committed employee; however, feels a sense of community and worth by the tasks that they complete. Regardless of whether their job is on an assembly line or in the corporate office, the subordinate is committed to completing their task well.

            Leaders that promote these principles among their subordinates are taking steps to create teams and groups of workers that are self-managing and self-leading. This has long-term positive effects toward the organizational culture. As Manz et al (1987) state, “when employees become members of a self-managing group, they tend to define their work roles in terms of their value as contributors to the group’s primary task rather than in relation to one specific job” (p. 9). A subordinate who feels valuable in their role is more likely to seek to improve and maintain quality performance. While there are certainly a countless number of positive attributes of pursuing this type of leadership style, there are still some limitations and boundaries that must be evaluated and defined by the leader.

The Limits of Participative Leadership

Like any great theory, problems arise when attempting to take it from theory to implementation. As Halal et al (1981) state, “One of the greatest barriers to the successful implementation of participative management involves a tacit ‘conspiracy of dependence,’ in which superiors find it hard to relinquish some of their control and subordinates are reluctant to assume greater responsibility for their behavior” (p. 22). When subordinates are subjected to a more authoritarian style, it might be difficult to break out of that mold and take on more responsibility in the workplace. People can sometimes become complacent when they are not challenged or the work does not change all that often. When that occurs, subordinates will be wary to take on additional tasks, which in turn creates a downward spiral where the leader is forced to revert to the authoritarian style to make sure the tasks are being completed. When attempting to change to a more participative form of leadership, the leader should be patient and allow the change to take place gradually. Communicating the change to the subordinates, and allowing them to add their input will allow them to take a sense of ownership in the change. Not doing so, will lead to widespread rejection of the changes and the desired result will not be achieved.

It is also important to remember that participative leadership does not equate to a complete democratic style. There still must be structure, and there still must be overall leadership that seeks to guide and maintain momentum toward completing tasks and goals. The leader cannot simply give everyone the same amount of power that they possess, for a number of reasons. More assertive personalities would soon take over, while the more passive subordinates would find their voices silenced. The leader is still an essential part of the participative leadership model, because they create the parameters and guidelines within which the subordinates can operate. Not only are they a point of contact for permissions and approvals, but they can also be utilized as a resource. Whether it be training, networking, or some other logistics of the task, often the leader can make the right connections to help the subordinate complete the task. The leader that is good at the participative model is approachable, down-to-earth, and is always proactive and aware of their subordinates.

Even with the leader who excels at participative leadership, there is always going to be an exception or circumstance that dictates a change in the way things typically operate. As Fox (1977) states,  “And in general terms, [McGregor] observes that it is sometimes necessary to issue a direct order, to take formal disciplinary action, and to terminate an employee” (p. 17). There are going to be times when a subordinate refuses to operate as a part of the team, and therefore becomes a problem to the workflow. When these types of problems arise, it is the job of the leader to take control of the situation, communicate the consequences to the subordinates, and maintain the culture of the organization. This is often a difficult task, as it requires the leader to take on several different roles and models for leadership simultaneously.

Finally, it is important for leaders to realize that participative leadership is not just about expanding the roles or requirements of the subordinates. While that certainly may show them that the leader trusts their ability, it does not change the role of the leader in the workplace. “Many managers still see job enlargement as a form of benevolent autocracy, and their unguided attempts to enlarge jobs fall more within the realm of manipulation than job enrichment” (Myers, 1968, p. 9). The goal of participative leadership is to create an organizational culture that allows the subordinate to take ownership and truly feel like they are valuable and involved in a community, rather than just a job. While it may result in a larger workload for the subordinate, that is not the ultimate goal. Instead, it is intended to enhance the work experience making it more fulfilling and rewarding which is mutually beneficial to the subordinate as well as to the organization.

Application in the Academic World

            As previously stated, there is likely no better place to explore and use participative leadership than in an academic setting, and many school systems are already implementing such systems, even on an elementary level. These steps have positive effects in multiple ways. “In order to increase the depth of a positive climate and culture within a school community (and thereby better preparing students for the workforce), a distributed leadership framework that includes student-led responsibilities has been found to be beneficial” (Louis et al., 2010). By allowing students to participate in these forms of communications, they are learning to be proactive and confident, and are receiving training in leadership characteristics early. At the collegiate level, this form of leadership can be invaluable, especially in career fields that dictate a more hands on approach, as opposed to a strictly theoretical approach. Students who are able to take control of their own education, and are given the guidance that is inherent within participative leadership will find themselves well prepared for careers in their respective fields. Likewise, creating student leaders allows the student to feel like they are valuable at their current level, and encourages them to continue to pursue further opportunities. Students who are bound to only a classroom experience will never be fully exposed to the resources that collegiate institutions can offer. It is essential for educators and administrators to push their students out of their comfort zone and encourage them to pursue avenues where they can develop their skills and become confident workers, and can share that knowledge with other students.

Conclusion

            There are many different styles of leadership, and sometimes each situation dictates a different style. In some instances, the authoritarian style is the more appropriate form. Likewise, authoritarian leaders are not necessarily grumpy “Scrooge’s,” hovering over their subordinates and not allowing them a day off on Christmas. Many command the respect of their subordinates and their productivity is high. Their system works. In reality, the best system is likely a combination of multiple systems depending on situations and tasks that arise within the organization. Participative leadership, while possessing flaws, can encourage a system that promotes creativity, self-confidence, and self-dependence among subordinates. Ultimately, it relies on Theory Y, which assumes that a person is capable of marrying their goals and talents with that of the organization, and that they can find value and ownership in their work without being prompted or demanded to do so by leadership. This system has incredible value in the academic world as it promotes learning and advancement of knowledge, skills, networking, and influence, and it does so by the effort of the subordinate, with the leader’s guidance and boundaries. Implementing this system in the academic setting can potentially create a person who will be better prepared for leadership roles in their career fields.

           

References

Bandura, A., & Wood, R.E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805-814.

Fox, W.M. (1977). Limits to the use of consultative-participative management. California Management Review, 20(2), 17-22.

Halal, W.E., & Brown, B.S. (1981). Participative management: Myth and reality. California Management Review. 23(4), 20-32.

Lee, M., & Koh, J. (2001) Is empowerment really a new concept? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(4), 684-695.

Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning. The Wallace Foundation.

Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 106-129.

McKibben, S. (2004). The Power of Student Voice. Educational leadership.

Miles, R.E., & Ritchie, J.B. (1971). Participative management: Quality vs. quantity. California Management Review, 13(4), 48-56.

Myers, M. (1968). Every employee a manager. California Management Review, 10(3), 9-20.

Schein, E.H. (1975). In defense of Theory Y. Organizational Dynamics, 4(1), 17-30