The Art Of Self-management

:

Self-management on its face seems to be a “win-win" answer to the dearth of availability of good managers and low-involvement entry-level jobs’ predominance. The question is whether the employees are well prepared for self-management, and whether the organizations in today’s era are making headway on the option of self-management. Predominant response to the idea of self-management can best be described by two words; skepticism and enthusiasm. According to the researchers, this concept should be adopted by a wide range of organization. On contrary, some researchers in their studies cite the impediments to this notion, chief among which is the management itself. This essay probes into the potential benefits and disadvantages associated with self-management with the support of theoretical evidence from latest research studies.   

Describing the main idea with the support of literature

Many researchers are enthusiastic about self-management by employees in organizations. For instance, Toole et al., (2007) regard self-management as a "win-win strategy". Srivastava et al., (2006) in their study accentuate that whatever the ways that enhance the interest of employees about how their jobs are impacting customers,  and how the improvements can be brought are most definitely welcomed. Eden (1993) in a study stated that self-management is required at all levels of staff including entry level jobs. According to Lorig & Holman (2003), self-management is regarded as the best leadership decision which brings along with it the “initiatives” rather than “followership”. Yet other researchers like Kirkman & Rosen (1999) presented a concern that was strongly projected by others. According to their study, if an individual is a command and control manager, one must keep away from one’s self-management. However, if people are directly engaged in learning conversations, developing, coaching and creating a clear picture of the result, it will have positive outcomes and the organizations would witness amazing results.

Some researchers are attracted to this idea in theory and regard this approach quite optimistic and inclusive. Srivastava & Locke (2006) suggest that self-management works very well in small teams due to limited personality conflicts. They suggest that self-management shows its effectiveness and benefits in the long run and reached this conclusion that it works in organizations and teams with relatively skilled employees who walk abreast to achieve a specific task within a given time frame.

According to various experts, self-management is an extreme case and one of the best features of those work places which have high-performance levels and are attractive to the talented people who aspire to join them and who are already working there. However, the way to high success on the job is not short. Nystrom & Starbuck (2015) state that high performance organizations give more attention to skill and least to attitude while selecting people. Moreover, as training is extremely important, high performance organizations give training for skills, not for attitude. Therefore, in order to implement self –management concept, employees have to be very skilled. Harper (2015) stated that there are two critical components of self-management initiative: "sophisticated work structuring and responsibilities”. There is another face of the same coin. On one side where self - management has positive impacts, limited managerial involvement might also result in serious repercussions, such as lack of employee commitment. According to Zhang & Zhou (2014), employee might not actively contribute to the activities going on in a work place, if there is no manager to monitor employees and guide them. There might be a lack of employee commitment as there is less intervention from the managers (Kaslow et al., 2012). Sometimes, managerial interventions are important in developing deeper commitments to the objectives of the organization.  Moreover, managerial limitations impact the level of innovation, as managers cannot get insights into the customer feedback and concerns when they do not interact with middle level employees. It results in communication gaps due to which the top managers try to take all the critical decisions on their own, thereby implementing ideas limited to the their own understanding and perceptions.  According to a study the disadvantages arising from dearth of managerial intervention are witnessed only in the nascent stages of the development of self-managed teams.  Meetings are called quite often, when there is limited managerial involvement, there is a fall in productivity before the organization takes off in a positive orientation, and there is more chaos as teams require infrastructure and support to accomplish their goals (Lawler, 1994).

Before investigating further into the potential advantages and drawbacks of low managerial involvement, this essay throws light on the functioning of self-managed teams (teams with limited managerial intervention).  Such teams are amalgamate of the attributes of formal as well as informal teams and take lives of their own. The responsibility of routine work is taken by team members themselves. In teams with low managerial intervention, decision making authority and responsibility is given over to a specific group of people whose performance is interdependent to complete a given task (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). These teams are focused on solving problems due to their autonomy and high performance.  Teams with limited managerial intervention are also called self-directed work teams (SDWTs).  According to Wellins (1991), SDWTs help reducing the requirement for extra management layers and help controlling costs. Besides, they ensure flexibility, communications, and eventually lead to reduced bureaucracy as the needs and requirements of the team members are seldom condoned.

Although there is a growing trend and focus on working independently with less managerial involvement, there are certain benefits and drawbacks associated with it. Moving towards benefits, according to Katzenbach & Smith (1993), if the job classification is reduced, it leads to occurrence of operations which are more efficient, and less managerial involvement provides improved flexibility to the staff. According to Wellins (1991), less managerial involvement leads to lower turnover rates as well as absenteeism. Likewise, Harper (2015) argues that minimum supervision often leads to a high level of commitment, better output, more discipline, high productivity and less wastage. It is further stated that teams with low managerial involvement do not have to wait for instructions regarding operational measures, since the work is done germane to set methods, therefore,  it leads to less wastage of time and resource.

On contrary some researchers argue otherwise.  According to Hackman (1990), low managerial intervention requires  extended time for the team members to complement policies and plans as well as heavy input in terms of investment to develop skill of the workers. This argument is further supported by Robbins (1996) who says that team members without managerial involvement remain unable to acclimatize to the work ambience as they are not treated equally for their success, rather they are treated with prejudice. The author further argues that such teams initially perform better but become reckless as the time goes by because of the supreme self-confidence of the team members.

Although, there are varying opinions about less managerial involvement. Harper (2015) has performed the best literature search and concluded in a book that the more powerful teams are the ones who have very less managerial involvement. Self-managed teams should be maintained in different organizational settings in spite of the disadvantages of limited managerial involvement.  

Obstacle to Self-Management

The major obstacle is considered to be the people. Kirkman & Shapiro (2001) identified in their study that the essential requirement for the success of self-management is "belief and dedication of top management” (p. 560 ). The notion of self-management would not turn into reality as long as there are people bossing over the employees. Additionally, the choice of the people has to be carefully considered, likewise, some people want self-management and some don’t. Self-managed teams become a success only if there is readiness on both sides (Stiglitz, 2000).

A demonstration of the effectiveness and issues of self-management

It was in early 1990s, Taco Bell's management had faced a problem. The business wanted to create new locations to sell its Mexican-themed products, but at the same time, there was a dearth of availability of experienced and capable managers in low-paying management jobs.  There were two solutions; to create a few higher paying positions for managers or to train entry-level workers at all the stores so that they could self-manage. Under initiative of “self-management", employees were given extensive training and technology that enabled them to hire, train, and supervise the new entrants managing store’s routine inventory, receipt handling and dealing themselves with personnel problems under the supervision of a "floating" manager who was responsible for many stores (Kofman & Senge, 1993). The results of this initiative were amazing. Workers were highly energized. There was a higher level of customer satisfaction and better cost control. It resulted in innovation. According to James & Edward, (2007), in "high involvement" workplaces the employees are not merely treated as expenses but assets. A comparison of the high wage and benefit policies of Costco and Wal-Mart was made.  Both organizations are highly accomplished. But Wal-Mart has comparatively high involvement through less costly methods which include the creation of a strong culture and promotion of self-management.

Conclusion

A "win-win" answer to the given statement is that the readiness of the workers should be kept at a top priority, especially when the application of new technologies is needed to help people perform the work related duties in an efficient manner. More important is the readiness of the management. After all, it moves away from traditional command and control management practices.  It needs development as well as implementation of new management information systems. At the end willingness and ability of organizations to invest in these systems also count volumes.

References

Eden, D. (1993). Leadership and expectations: Pygmalion effects and other self-fulfilling prophecies in organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(3), 271-305.

Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work and those that don't (No. E10 H123). Jossey-Bass.

Harper, C. (2015). Organizations: Structures, processes and outcomes. Routledge.

Kaslow, N. J., Falender, C. A., & Grus, C. L. (2012). Valuing and practicing competency-based supervision: A transformational leadership perspective. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 1(6), 47-50

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Harvard Business Press.

Kirkman, B.L., & Shapiro, D.L. (2001). The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 3(44), 557-569.

Kofman, F., & Senge, P.M., (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 2(22), 5-23.

Lawler, E. E. (1994). Total quality management and employee involvement: are they compatible?. The Academy of Management Executive, 1(8), 68-76.

Lorig, K.R., & Holman, H.R. (2003). Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioural Medicine, 1(26), 1-7.

Nystrom, P.C., & Starbuck, W.H. (2015). To avoid organizational crises, unlearn. Unlearn (December 25, 2015).

O'Toole, J., Lawler, E.E., & Meisinger, S.R. (2007). The new American workplace. Palgrave Macmillan.

Robbins, S. P. (1991). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, and applications. Prentice Hall.

Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M., & Locke, E.A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy Of Management Journal, 6(49), 1239-1251.

Stiglitz, J. (2000). Democratic development as the fruits of labor. Perspectives on Work, 2(5), 31-37.

Wellins, R. S. (1991). Empowered teams: Creating self-directed work groups that improve quality, productivity, and participation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.,

Zhang, X., & Zhou, J. (2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2(124), 150-164.