Harold Leavitt
Harvard Business Review, 1962, July-August: 90-98

Yonatan Reshef
School of Business
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2R6 CANADA

Decisions about which approach an organization should adopt ought to be guided by a number of factors. The different managerial approaches fit different types of businesses, situations, and individuals. The key to effective utilization of any of them is installing them in conditions to which they suited. Differently put, there is no universal, one-size-fits-all managerial approach.

Leavitt refers to these statements as "participative beliefs." They have one common integrating element -- the idea that organizations are essentially human; that is, people are more important than anything else, and worker fulfillment ought to be a prime organizational goal. This is too narrow a perspective from which to analyze the management of organizations.  Leavitt claims that these beliefs should be reexamined for two reasons:

 

Participative Beliefs Revisited In so eagerly demolishing Taylorism we may have thrown out some useful parts of the baby with the bath water. We may even be repeating some of the mistakes of Taylorism that we have taken such pains to point out. Though it is clear that Taylorism has had some large and unforeseen costs, it also seems clear that present-day Taylorism, i.e., the ideas and techniques of industrial engineering, continue to be viable and almost invariably present in North American firms (p. 91). We have new knowledge both from the information and communication sciences and the social sciences that may be applicable to organizational problems; and if we freeze on our present beliefs, we may not be able to incorporate that knowledge (p. 92).

Which Kind of Structure By certain industrial engineering-type criteria (e.g. speed, clarity of organization and job descriptions, very simple job design), a highly routinized noninvolving, centralized communication network seems to work best. But if our criteria of effectiveness are more general and less measurable, (e.g. acceptance of creativity, flexibility in dealing with novel problems, problem solving, generally high morale, and loyalty), then a more egalitarian or decentralized network seems to work better.

Conclusions

Is it right to conclude that if we want to achieve one kind of goal, then one kind of structure seems feasible? This is not his conclusion. His conclusion is that,
 

We need to become more analytical about organizations, to separate our values from our analyses more than we have up until now; that we need also to take a more microscopic look at large organizations and to allow for the possibility of differentiating several kinds of structures and managerial practices (p. 97).

In other words, Taylorism strives to routinize all work and, by routinizing, to control it. TQM strives to eliminate routinization and make all jobs challenging. Leavitt suggests to do both: to routinize and control what we can; to loosen up and make challenging what we cannot. The reason being, different subparts of the organization may perform different kinds of tasks, and therefore may call for many different kinds of management practices.

In many cases, however, management has choices in regard to the managerial practices it uses. Perhaps the ultimate question then is: which employee forces does management wish to unleash (creativity and imagination or compliance and obedience)? Despite Leavitt's arguments, different answers might be underlain by different managerial philosophies/values.  

Leavitt had written his article long before TQM entered the North American business scene. Yet it has an important implication for TQM -- we should adopt a contingency approach when debating the introduction of TQM. Moreover, Taylorist elements can co-exist with TQM systems. Thus, perhaps it is not the specific approach one chooses but the internal consistency of the overall model that dictates successful implementation.

A side comment:
When we introduce TQM, we should not lose sight of TQM's internal contradictions, and of the fact that implementation of TQM principles can end in a command-and-control system. Some useful implementation-oriented questions:

• consensus/conformity vs. creativity/innovation
• commitment -- to whom?
• empowerment vs. conformity/compliance
• team work vs. peer pressure
• management by fact vs. creativity
• standardization vs. continuous improvement
• involvement vs. to what extent?
• do it right the first time vs. innovate through experimentation, take risks.

Choosing an Involvement Strategy
Edward E. Lawler III
The Academy of Management Executive, 1988: 197-204

I. Three involvement strategies vis-à-vis the following questions
- How much power should manage give its workers to make decisions that influence organization performance?
- How much knowledge should management provide its workers to enable them to understand and contribute to organizational performance?
- How much information about the performance of the organization should management provide its workers?
- what kind of rewards?

II. Factors determining the choice of involvement strategy

1. The nature of the work and technology
2. Values of the key participants
3. The organization's current management approach.

Work and Technology

Perhaps the overriding determinant of how an organization should approach involvement is the kind of work it does and the technology it uses. There are some situations in which the technology is not amenable to any of the involvement approaches, with the possible exception of suggestion involvement.

Two aspects of technology are particularly critical influences on the appropriateness of different involvement approaches -- the degree of interdependence and the degree of complexity.

Interdependence refers to the extent to which individuals need to coordinate, cooperate, and relate to others to produce the product or services the organization offers. High interdependence argues for teams and against individual approaches to work design.

High work complexity calls for job enrichment, while low complexity calls for simple jobs and incentive pay. Where work is simple and repetitive by necessity, it is hard to put in place a high involvement or even job involvement approach, unless the technology can be changed.

Values and Beliefs/Current Management Approach
If the participants' values and beliefs do not match the chosen approach, the approach is unlikely to be fully implemented and effectively operated. In the case of suggestion involvement, management simply needs to believe that employees have useful ideas about how things can be improved.

The high involvement approach, on the other hand, requires that managers believe in the capabilities, sense of responsibility, and commitment of people throughout the organization.

The values of the workers are also important to consider. Where there has been a long history of autocratic management, the majority of the workforce may not want to be more involved. They may have become conditioned to the control-oriented approach and appreciate the fact that they can just put in their eight hours and not have to take the job home with them. In addition, self-selection may have taken place so that those who most value involvement quit long ago, leaving behind those who are less attracted to it.

Societal values can also come into play in determining the appropriate approach to involvement. Democratic societies provide much more supportive environments for the high involvement approach than do autocratic societies.