Rensis Likert and Participative Management- Administrative Thinkers

Rensis Likert

Hi everyone,

Due to some technical reasons, I am skipping Herbert Simon's theory for the time being. I shall upload it sometime later. Now, let us come to the Participative Management Theories. The first theorist in this regard is Rensis Likert.

He developed his theory on administration based on an empirical study which could be equated only with Hawthrone Studies. The study employed 40 researchers, consumed number of years and considered diverse category of organizations both from the public sector and the private sector. Based on these studies, he contributed on Organizational Systems, Styles of Leadership and Management of Conflicts etc.

While studying the organizations, he found out that there are certain organizations which are efficient and there are other which as less efficient. On observation, it was found out that the efficient organizations were managed by Employee Centred Leaders i.e. leaders who focus on human requirements or emotions and try to develop the individuals as efficient workers. On the other hand, it was found that the less efficient organizations were managed by the job centred leaders i.e. leaders who focus on the targets or who focus on fixing the targets, laying down the procedure to achieve the target and imposing their views over the subordinates. Thus, they came out with a conclusion that employee centred leaders are more efficient than the job centred leaders.

The researchers wanted to corroborate this conclusion and for that they swapped the employee centred with the job centred leaders to manage different organizations. Job centred leaders handled the more efficient organizations and there was a small increase in their productivity immediately and after that the productivity flattened for a period of time and finally, it started decreasing gradually. On the other hand, when the employee centred leaders managed the less efficient organizations, the productivity remained same for a period of time, after that, it gradually started increasing and finally, the organizations became efficient.

Likert began with four types of organizational systems and later on, he added two more to the list. He focused more on System 1 and System 4. System 2 and 3 were merely sketchy in nature.

1.    Exploitative Authoritarian System- It represents a mechanistic organization that has been developed by the classical theories of the organization. It is characterized as hierarchic Organization, rigid superior- subordinate relationship, top down communication, man to man relation, working through the fear of punishment and allurement of reward i.e. Carrot and Stick Policy.

2.      Benevolent Authoritarian System- This system is closer to system 1.

3.      Consultative System- This system is closer to system 4.

4.     Democratic Participative System- It is characterized by overlapping structure, cross functional linkages, flexible superior- subordinate relationship, working through emphasizing on the trust and confidence of the subordinate, group to group relationship, all way communication.

System 4 types of organizations were considered to be most efficient in nature. System 4 is characterized with supportive relationship, interaction- influence system, linking pin model

A.    Supportive Relationship- In a system 4 type of organization, leadership is considered to be a relational process. He emphasized that in these organizations, the leader is expected to adopt its style of functioning according to the nature of his subordinate. This type of leadership style results into the individual feeling important or worthy or having a feeling of being supported. Supportive Relationship is an environment within the organization which emerges out of the leadership functions which when taken up while considering individual’s background, expectations and values. This gradually leads towards the individual being integrated with the organization.

B.     Interaction- Influence System- Within the organization, the organizational process gets integrated with the managerial process. Here, organizational process means individual’s skill, resources and motivation and managerial process means commanding, co-ordinating, correlating etc. It results into maximization of individual’s resources and motivation.

C.     Linking Pin Model- In a system 4 type of organization, an individual is a part of two groups, a group in which the individual is a leader and a group in which the individual is a member, thereby, the individual acts as a link between the superior group and a subordinate group. This happens because of the participative approach which is emphasized in a system 4 type of organization. Because of this, there is a group to group relation and this leads to communication travelling upwards, maximum utilization of an individual’s potentiality and complementarity of actions.

Besides this, he has also tried to elaborate the productivity of human resource within the organization. This Human Resource Accounting been explained through the concept of Science of Management. He has used three types of variables in this regard. This is with reference with to productivity within system 1 and system 4.

                                                              i.      Causal Variable- He refers to the organizational structures and leadership style.

                                                            ii.      Intermediate Variable- He refers to the motivation and the control within the organization.

                                                          iii.      End Result Variable- He refers to the individual’s productivity.

Variables	System 1	System 4
Causal Variables	Hierarchic Structure, Rigid Superordinate -subordinate Relationship, Lack of trust and confidence in the subordinate, emphasis on Carrot and Stick Policy etc.	Flexible Structure, Relaxed Supervision, having trust and confidence in the subordinate, group to group relation etc.
Intervening Variables	Less co-operation, More conflict, High unnecessary pressure of work, Lower Performance Goal, Lower commitment towards managers and peers.	More co-operation, Less Conflict, Less pressure of work, Higher Performance Goal, Higher loyalty towards the managers and peers.
End Result Variables	Lower Productivity, High Cost of Production and Loss or Inefficiency.	Higher Productivity, Lower Cost of Production and Higher Profit or Efficiency.

The organization to be efficient should always move towards System 4. The movement in this regard should not be abrupt rather it should be gradual. Abrupt grafting towards system 4 will result into failure as the individuals will not able to adapt to the new values or norms. For this, he has developed a concept of Organization Improvement Cycle. His concept in this regard is explained below.

1.      Create an ideal model of the desired system.

2.      On the basis of the comparison, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current system.

3.      Prepare a plan of action to retain the strength and eliminate the weaknesses.

4.      Apply the plan into action.

His suggestions in this regard are as follows.

A.    Changes should be on account of organizational structure and leadership style.

B.     While bringing about changes, the workers should be involved, individuals within the organization should be aware about the changes.

C.     Changes should be brought about while involving the most influential personalities within the organization.

D.    The changes should be brought about through an impersonal approach. Changes should not be planned with bias.

Contemporary organizations are now manned by persons who are skilled, aware and ambitious. The system 4 is becoming more and more efficient.

Organizational Conflict

It is a viewpoint or a standpoint carried by one which will get displaced if the viewpoints of others are accepted.

Substantive Conflict- It refers to the conflict which surrounds the job.

Affective Conflict- The conflict which involves emotions, prejudices, superstitions etc. is referred to as Affective Conflict. The managers should always try to discourage affective conflict.

The managers should try to devise a Win-Win Strategy rather than Win-Lose Strategy. This is similar to the Follet’s idea of Integration.