Participative Design of Work

= based on the Participative Design Workshops of Merrelyn Emery.

Typology

"DP1 and DP2) underlying all forms of organization. These corresponded to autocracy and democracy.

...

DP1 is called ‘redundancy of parts’ because there are more parts (ie people) than are required to perform a task at any given time. In DP1, responsibility for coordination and control is located at least one level above where the work is being done. That is, those above have the right and responsibility to tell those below what to do and how to do it. DP1 yields a supervisory or dominant hierarchy. Individuals have fragmented tasks and goals: one person–one job.

DP2 is called ‘redundancy of functions’ because more skills and functions are built into every person than that person can use at any one given point in time. In DP2, responsibility for coordination and control is located with the group of people performing the whole task. Each self managing group works to a unique set of negotiated and agreed, measurable goals, comprehensively covering every aspect of the work, social and environmental as well as production.

DP1 structures are hierarchies of personal dominance. DP2 structures are non-dominant hierarchies of function, where change is negotiated between peers.

Laissez-faire is defined as the absence of a design principle and, therefore, the absence of structure. It is every person for themself. Laissez-faire today commonly takes the form of an organization where the structure on paper is DP1, but the controls have been loosened to the point that there is widespread confusion about where responsibility for control and coordination are located.

DP1 structures induce competition, whereas DP2 structures induce cooperation.

Over time, DP1 actively deskills and demotivates people, whereas DP2 skills and motivates them.

Problems such as interpersonal conflict or lack of initiative are usually blamed on individuals, but Emery’s work shows that they are systemic — the effect of design principles on behaviour.

Importantly, the Norwegian project showed that successful demonstration or pilot sites are not necessarily copied in the surrounding areas. Success does not breed success. This finding has been replicated many times since.

Emery then went on to develop a new, quick and simple method for shifting organizations to the democratic, DP2 structure. This involved “Participative Design Workshops”, through which those who work in an organization set about redesigning it." (http://newunionism.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/democratizing-work-the-why-and-the-how/)

Discussion

Merrelyn Emery:

'If groups of people are to be expected to take responsibility for self-management, it is important that they have designed their own section of the organization. The assumption underlying the method described here is that the most adequate and effective designs come from those who know the work. It is only from people pooling their various and usually fragmented, but always detailed, knowledge that a comprehensive and workable design can come. Moreover, it is only when the people involved work out their own designs that the necessary motivation, responsibility and commitment to effective implementation is present. The people must ‘own’ their section of the organization." (http://newunionism.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/participative-design/)

The DP2 Model

Merrelyn Emery:

" The critical feature of DP2 is that responsibility for control and coordination is located with the people who are doing the work, learning or planning (see part one). As described below, there are several variations on self-managing groups.

Because they are taking responsibility for their own work and behaviour, a DP2 organization is called democratic. In DP2, there may still be a hierarchy, however it is a hierarchy of functions. In large DP2 structures, the functional levels may consist (for example) of three levels — strategic management of the organization as a whole, resourcing and operations. Each level consists of one or more self-managing groups, but there are no relations of dominance. Change can be initiated by any part of the organization and all change is negotiated by peers.

The democratic organizational module has markedly different potentials. The first and obvious feature is that there are no individual jobs or positions. Workers are now jointly responsible for all the tasks and all the inter-dependencies and interactions. They are also responsible for monitoring and controlling the contributions of members, organizing themselves to cope with individual and task variations and meeting their agreed group goals.

DP2 structures engender cooperation and affect the 6 criteria and communication in ways that are starkly different from DP1.

Elbow room. The group now has many decisions to make but if one worker does not like making decisions, s/he can leave them to those who do.

Setting own goals and challenges. Within the set of group goals, there are many sub-goals. In the process of working out who will do which task and when, individuals have plenty of room to build in challenges for their own learning.

Feedback. Because it is the group as a whole that is held responsible for meeting its goals, it is now in the in the interests of them all to ensure an errant worker fixes the mistake.

Variety. People who thrive on variety have it available, while people who prefer less can stick to one task for longer.

Mutual support and respect. There are examples in the literature and folk lore of people with intellectual disabilities who grew remarkably after becoming a member of a self managing group. DP2 structures provide the individual with a human scale of organization (a work ‘home’, ‘family’ or territory), whereby people feel they fit into the organization, no matter how large that may be. If one worker has a drug, alcohol or mental health problem, they will be the subject of group concern and care. The only danger here is that groups may persevere with this past the point where the person concerned should be referred to professional help.

Social value. People in DP2 structures actively work to promote the value of their activities and its outcomes.

Seeing whole product/service. One of the criteria of good DP2 design is that a group has a whole task to consider. A characteristic of DP2 organizations is a high level of knowledge of the organization, so that if the group’s end product is still simply a component, individuals still understand the meaning of their contribution.

Desirable future. The ambitious now have the full range of skills and knowledge available within the “group task” to learn. Work can be organized so that individuals maintain their skills through practice.

Communication and power within these groups take on markedly different characteristics to those we find in DP1 structures. There is no ‘them’ and ‘us’ in DP2, as ‘we’ are all in it together. (Emery & Emery, 1976). This is why communication and power cannot be taken as basic variables of organizational design. They are universally present attributes of organization, but they do not tell us much of relevance about what is communicated, what is commanded.

Changes in organizational design affect the nature of communication. However, the reverse does not hold. Provided we have a group and not just a collection of individuals or a mob, that is, the group has accepted responsibility for group goals, then it will seek to make its life easier (or more productive for their ends) by:

(a) communicating quickly, directly and openly the needs for co-ordination arising from task or individual variability;

(b) allocating tasks and other rewards and punishments to control what they consider to be a fair contribution by members.

Such groups can get a sense of their over-riding group responsibility only if they have at least four members (with three it is too often a matter of just interpersonal relations – shifting coalitions of two against one). While the minimum size is four, the upper limit depends on factors such as technology. Groups show good judgement in determining the right size group to meet task demands.

These groups are self-managing, not autonomous as they often were in cottage industry. They are working with materials and equipment for which the organization must get an adequate return. They are working in conditions where the organization, not they, is responsible for observing the mass of social legislation laid down for basic pay rates, safety, product quality, etc.

Differing organizational circumstances will determine the range of responsibilities for different operational groups but functions such as hiring and firing are not included as these functions are covered by groups in other levels of the functional hierarchy. Operational groups though are certainly involved in these decisions.

In self managing groups, the roles of spokespeople, leadership and training move around the group as circumstances and needs change. Multi-skilling does not mean that everybody must be able to do everything. It simply needs to be sufficient to allow flexible allocation of work within the group, and to encourage the cohesiveness of the group. How they allocate the work is their responsibility." (http://newunionism.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/participative-design/)