Making
My Workplace More Participatory
As an
Administrative Assistant of Flooring Ltd, I have always realized
that my job is very different than the jobs of my friends who work for
minimum
wage at such establishments as fast food restaurants and grocery stores. I have been an employee at Flooring Ltd,
which sells and installs all types of flooring (including carpet, tile,
and
vinyl), for seven years now. It is a
business run out of my aunt and uncle’s home (the co-owners), with the
office
upstairs in the attic, and the showroom in a garage adjacent to the
home. Flooring Ltd employs eight people
that work
in the office and showroom (including my aunt and uncle), three
warehouse
workers, and approximately nine installers.
Therefore, I would classify it as a small business in a
competitive
market.
I believe
my workplace has a Scientific Management organizational
structure. This assumption is based on
the fact that my workplace has mostly low (but for some workers, high)
autonomy,
high role specialization, medium to high standardization, and high
centralization. The employers realize
that the office workers are not machines, but rather like to make their
own
decisions; however, they grant this with some limits.
For this reason, there has been virtually no sabotage
or resistance in their 14 years of business.
However, the employers keep a close eye on the installers and
warehouse
workers, assuming that if they don’t give them a set schedule all of
the time,
they will simply be lazy and not do the work they are supposed to do.
In my
workplace, there is both high and low autonomy,
depending on the worker. For example,
the installers have low autonomy because they are told by the employers
when
they have to install what flooring for which customer.
The warehouse workers also have low autonomy
because they are given a schedule at the beginning of the day of what
they are
supposed to deliver where, and at what time; they are expected to
follow this
daily schedule. However, the office
workers have high autonomy (myself included).
We are all allowed to decide when we want to do something, and
it is up
to us to know when something should or shouldn’t be done.
Upon my own arrival each week, I decide when
and if I am going to do certain tasks.
For instance, the showroom gets vacuumed twice a week, but the
tile
floor in the showroom doesn’t need to be scrubbed as often, and my
employers
let me decide when it needs to be done.
Also, I get to decide on which days of the week I want to do
certain
tasks. For example, if I want to clean
the office on Friday instead of Tuesday, I can.
At
Flooring Ltd, there is high role specialization, meaning
each worker does not have many tasks to complete, and the only tasks we
have
knowledge of are the ones that we do ourselves. For
instance, if my sister (who is also
employed there) were to go out of town one week, I would not have the
knowledge
of how to complete many of her tasks. My
weekly tasks are to clean the office and showroom (including dusting,
vacuuming, and putting away flooring samples), make the installers’
paperwork,
answer the phones, and do filing.
Obviously, these few tasks (all except making paperwork for the
installers) are not very complex, which makes me know that I have very
high
role specialization. Another example of
this is that each installer only installs one specific type of
flooring; the
carpet installers only install carpet, the vinyl installers only
install vinyl,
and so on.
I
believe that my workplace has medium and high standardization;
that is, tasks must be done in the same way each time.
All of the installers and the warehouse
workers have high standardization; the installers must install the
flooring the
same way each time, so each customer is just as satisfied as another. The warehouse workers must do the same things
each day: prepare and deliver the flooring. However, the office workers
have
medium standardization. We get to come
up with our own routines. For example, I
do have the same tasks to complete over and over, but I get to decide
how I
want to do them. For instance, if I see
that the desks are not too dusty, I can do a very quick, easy-over job
on them,
saving a more thorough job for when the desks get very dusty. For the tile floors, if I don’t feel like
scrubbing them every time, I can just use a wet Swiffer on them every
other
time or so. However, some of my tasks
must be done in the same way each time in order to promote efficiency. The task that is foremost in this is making
the installers’ paperwork, because if I change the way I copy or
highlight it,
the installers could make a costly mistake to the business in
installing the
flooring.
My
workplace has high centralization, meaning it has a very
established system of hierarchy. My aunt
is the President of the company, and my uncle is the Vice President,
and they
control whom they will hire (or fire), the wages and benefits of their
employees, as well as the hours worked and the tasks expected of the
employees. There is also a Warehouse
Manager, who is in charge of the other two warehouse workers, and an
Office
Manager, who takes care of all of the office decisions, ones that my
aunt and
uncle do not want to deal with themselves.
Although
my workplace employs a Human Resource Management
organizational structure, it utilizes some Scientific Management
techniques,
such as time clocks. It also has some
Participatory Management techniques, such as mutual feedback.
Some
technology exists in my workplace. We have
the basic technology that any
business would, including telephones, computers, printers, and fax
machines. I like my job because we don’t
have any Scientific Management technology employed for any of the
workers, including
time clocks and machines that managers control.
This allows for more worker freedom; because I don’t have a time
clock
and instead have a time card, where I sign in and sign out myself, I
feel like
my employers trust me more.
Overall,
the skills required to do my job are very
small. Anyone could learn to clean,
answer phones, and do the installers’ paperwork. For
this reason, I sometimes feel that my job
is not important to the efficiency of the business, but, overall, I am
very
satisfied with my job.
In
order to solicit participation from the workforce, my
workplace would have to incur many changes.
Autonomy would continue to remain high, but the role
specialization
would have to decrease significantly.
The workers would have to know how to do a variety of tasks; for
example, I could learn how to do my sister Amy’s jobs and perhaps some
of the
Office Manager’s, so in case someone gets sick or has another reason as
to why
he or she cannot complete his or her task, the jobs will be covered.
Standardization
would also have to decrease. One simple
way for this to happen is for the
employers and managers to allow us workers the complete freedom to do
whatever
tasks we feel the need to do. When
workers know the jobs expected of them, but have little structure as to
how
they should be completed, this contributes to the making of a
Participatory Workplace.
In
addition, centralization would have to decrease
considerably. The employers could let us
workers contribute to the major decisions about the workplace,
including whom
to hire and how to improve the efficiency of the business.
Instead of hiding from the installers the
prices of the goods charged to customers, this information (as well as
information about coworkers’ wages, and the total gross earnings of the
business) would be available to all.
Also, if the workplace were to become more participatory, the
workers
would be allowed and encouraged to communicate more with each other,
and there
would be no worker segregation. Because
of the three different areas of work (office, installers, and
warehouse), these
three groups of workers tend to stick to their “own people”. Instead of this happening, there should be
more worker integration and encouraged communication.
This builds inter-work relationships and
contributes to low centralization. This
could be done by having social events to integrate the groups, such as
work
parties and picnics, which would hopefully eventually move into the
workplace.
Besides
changing the four characteristics of structure
(autonomy, role specialization, standardization, and centralization),
power and
skill would have to be changed in order to allow the workers more voice
in the
company. The power would have to become
more shared, and the easiest way to do this is to get rid of the
managers and
the “President” and “Vice President” titles, and instead make these
“higher”
people equal to the regular workers (like myself) in the business. Because all of the employees would have just
as much say in the business decisions as the employers, this would
allow for
collective decisions to be made, therefore creating more job
satisfaction. Then, all of the workers
would feel as if
their input is important to the functioning of the workplace.
Also,
the workplace would have to be changed so as to allow
all workers to have the same amount of skill.
Requiring all workers to know the same amount (hopefully the
knowledge
of how everything works concerning the business) would cause a more
participatory workplace because then all workers would be seen as (and
see
themselves as) a vital part to the success of the business. This could be done by having “workshops” that
teach the employees all aspects of how the business is run, and what
things
must be done in order to keep the business being successful. This would cause them to know that they are
an important part in the functioning of the business.
In
conclusion, I am rather satisfied with my job at Flooring
Ltd. However, there are a variety of
things that must be done in order for the workplace to become
participatory. When the aforementioned
items are incorporated into the workplace, it would indeed change from
Scientific
Management to Participatory Management.