I prefer the latter (care and involvement). Although none of the two methods has intrinsic values, I prefer to be cared for and empowered to do my job. It makes me feel that I am part of the team. Being controlled, especially as if I am a dummy hurts. I am less productive when I am not given a free hand to operate.  

Dear Debi,

I perefer the care &,involement. Involving and empowerment of employees in planning is more efficient and productive.

Job satisfaction mostly comes from being happy with the jib and other intangibles: feeling part of a team and being valued and appreciated consistently.

The main benefits of employee involvement and empowerment are

• Enhanced morale,
• More productivity,
• Healthier coworker relationships and
• Creative thinking.

The following links demonstrate the value of Employee empowerment

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/benefits-practicing-employee-involvement-empowerment-1842.html

http://www.centerod.com/2012/02/getting-most-from-people/

Debi,

I could use the old adage "whatever works best", but that is, as we say, a cop-out. I truly believe the first (Method A) is necessary and eventually leads to the second (Method B). The first, controlling and directional, seems harsh, but workers initially need to be shown how to do something in such a way as to get the desired results. I have trained many people in analysis, procedure, and documentation. All required time to learn the different processes and needed guidance until they did.

As to the second method (Method B), people who have not been trained in how to do something properly and with the desired results can not be of assistance planning that work. It is only through Method A do people acquire the experience that is required in order to assist in planning and implementation. It is also through that experience that they might be able too see a better way to do the job. In addition, it is through this process that we acquire the confidence to hand them a project and say "go to it" without further instructions.

This is even true among peers. If a microbiologist worked at Lab A, but is hired by Lab C, that does not mean that he/she knows Lab C's safety protocols, testing regime, priorities, etc. It requires Method A to get him/her familiar with the new system. Normally they can not proceed independently until his/her administrator/co-workers are confident that he/she knows the new system.

Both ways work, depending on the capability of individuals and your judgement

Both with the ration of 25 % direction & control where needed to fulfill the task timely with less wastage of resources and 75 % Care & involvement to Sustainability of Happiness, Encouragement and Humanity Traits in general .

Dear Debi, dear All,

Control presupposes reporting- a lot of bureaucratic papers as records.It's a standard of the bureaucratic system. In our humanistic, intellectual, creative environment (the island of good in the stormy ocean)  there is responsibility and every emploee isn't able to let administration down.My colleagues are punctual, decent, serious, and disciplined. Besides, there are a lot of very important papers, connected with documentation.Obligations (functions, standards, employee responsibilities) are established by the Statute.I tried and try (like our administration) to use Care and Involvement in my administrative work- in attestation, in assistance and helping to young, in supporting the unsure of themselves, in encouraging and inspiring my colleagues to share their unique experience, in involving them in a lot of creative and scientific activities, and  in helping them in need. I'm sure, personally oriented approach is productive, effective and efficient. We must trust our colleagues and vice versa within the humanistic space.Our students consider us as a family. 

Usually the second one is more effective and one that I personally prefer. However, sometimes the nature of the work and the pre existing comfort-level and expertise of the employee will determine what is needed most in that specific context. Also depends upon the stage at which it is at, so you can start with explicit direction and then slowly move on toward allowing more independent decision-making and involvement when the employee is more ready. As for care, I think it should be always be present, it is not an either/or situation. The ethic of care is essential to all productivity and to life in general.

Dear Debi. I give my own understanding and interpretation. It is more worthwhile to teach someone to do something than to do it for them. This is how I feel. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Accordingly, I prefer the 2nd method: ii) Care & involvement

Dear Brignoli

Both methods are wanted and must be used with care. Direction and control is needed in works that need efforts specially if it is muscular effort. Care and involvement is needed also specially with research and creative works

Regards

Hi Debi. I think the answer depends on the experience level of the employee as well as on the type of job we are talking about.

Inexperienced employees, such as those just out of school, may need more direction than an experienced employee. The more experienced the employee, the more I would hope the employee can guide his/her own efforts. And the less they would appreciate being spoonfed instructions by a manager. Let's not forget that managers are often less knowledgeable than their employees, on the technical details of the work.

The other aspect of this is the type of job. Some jobs require more, shall we say, choreography. They need that "choir master," if you will, to coordinate the efforts of the team. Think along the lines of construction work. Other jobs can be accomplished best by independent efforts eventually coming together, and do not depend so much on day to day direction from the choreographer.

And then there is the question of the level of self-motivation of the employee. An employee whose job is to stock shelves at the grocery store may take it upon him/herself to make sure the shelves remain well stocked and arranged, or may need to be told when to address the problem at a particular shelf. People are different. Ideally, of course, everyone would be self motivated.

I much prefer not to be micromanaged. The most outstanding managers are those who can "read" their employees quickly, and then manage accordingly. I have been fortunate enough to have had such managers.

 All my OD initiatives are now hybrid bringing directions and control into citizenship charter as part of self managed and engaged work schemes.

To me over my past experience, my work derivative skills has evolved from direction & control to care & involvement.

Today,  our OD initiatives are now hybrid bringing directions and control into citizenship charter as part of self managed and engaged work schemes more strategic towards High performance work systems (HPWS).

We have successfully implemented SWT in both existing and green field manufacturing (process and product)  organizations across various verticals.

These two approaches to managing are in fact two models in people management. The direction and control is envisaged in the Hard model (also called the instrumentalist model) propounded by some Michigan University professors; the latter is the empowerment model propounded by five Harvard Business school professors. The latter believes in proactively focusing on dignity, communication,leadership, trust, care of people, who are considered resourceful humans. The former talks of people like any other assets. If they are or become useless they are so treated.

caring and empowering seems more efficient. However, I have experienced that in some instance it's better the other  way around, in case that there are no results within particular group settings. This also depends on size of company or institution, where larger tend to have organized systems of developing things and solving the solutions, whilst smaller organization tend to be more productive from nurturing type. 

I prefer the second method of care and involvement to the first method of direction and control. The reason is that the second method gives others more chances to use their own peculiar ability.

I prefer harvard approach if the material permits... oif not, then selection and control...

Dear Debi S. Saini

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this interesting discussion.

The question as what style of Personnel Management I prefer, without much discussion and argument I say that of Care and Participation, but does not have to despise or ignore the style Direction and Control.

Depending on the task and degree of training and staff training at our expense, you must first organize work teams directly by the head Formal area or department of the company, or by self-selection (desirable) thereof employees, whether by gender, prior knowledge of people, being neighbors or schoolmates in some training, or simply because they seem nice people.

Once organized and placed employees in work teams, the next step (if they had not previously done) is to diagnose the level of knowledge and skills of workers to perform certain tasks and in particular the work reason to meet the objectives and goals of the company.

It made the diagnosis level of knowledge and skills of staff decides who require training or updated during a course formally or informally scheduled during the development work.

Being homogeneous or similar training for all workers level, it is convenient to initiate actions and activities (already scheduled or planned) in the teams. At this time also it agrees that there is a formal coordinator or elected by members of the group themselves to bring in an organized group process so that each time the results lead to the achievement of the objective and goal of the company.

During the group process, where usually the leader of the task, the coordinator should encourage team participation, informing or asking someone of the members provide such information or explain certain knowledge needed to advance the task.

Late in the group process, it seems obvious but should be detailed, that there are different types of leadership, formal by the coordinator of the Task Force, the moral leader (appointed during the process by coworkers) and Leadership Task , which by its nature guides all actions and activities towards achieving the goals and targets mentioned above.

Finally both styles of Personnel Management, has its objectives, advantages and limitations.

• Advantages Style Direction and Control: Important to guide and begin the work of employees without work experience and few skills and knowledge about the task at hand
• Limitations Style Direction and Control; Limits the innovation and creativity of people, long-term reified (as mere instruments contributing) and brutish.
• Advantages Style Care and Participation: Stimulates creativity and innovation, promotes growth, maturity and personal development. It also facilitates meaningful learning, personal attention and human communication
• Limitations Style Care and Participation: None known, if at all "empowered" employees to the detriment of managers and supervisors.

regards

Dr. Jose Luis Garcia Vigil

Holding somebody's hand all the way will encourage dependency.  After several years of this practice, it becomes difficult to wean them off. The best give direction and observe from a distance. Let them to make their own mistake and learn from it.  They probably fall but they can stand up again and dust themselves off and start again. Very soon you have an independent thinker.

I do agree with mixing of style. However, I feel it is the stage of an individual's knowledge and expertise and yes common sense to understand things. If the tasks are new then 'Care & Involvement' is required and once an individual got the idea then 'Direction & Control' will be more suitable.

It depends upon the individual which style should be preferred. 

Of course, care and involvement!

But ...we have to avoid extremes!

The decisions we make and the way we communicate in the workplace can greatly help each of us as a leader—or irreparably harm us. If we spend too much time soliciting opinions and trying to draw a consensus, others grow frustrated with our indecision. Conversely, if we do not consult others when it comes to an important decision, we are sure to lose trust and the ownership of those that have to implement the decision.

The secret to making decisions effectively is to be able to achieve a balance between these extremes—not too reliant on the opinions of others, but respectful of any feedback that team members give.

http://aboutleaders.com/when-to-include-others-in-decision-making/#gs.yCX2JMY

In my opinion a combination of both methods according to the situation is better. A good manager is who can decide correctly for each individual how to mix.

Dear Saini sir

Thank you for inviting me into this interesting discussion.

Possibly, what I feel is the most fruitful method is integration of both in an intellectual way. It depends upon the each personality which technique should be preferred.

But personally, I preferred the care & involvement because it is more efficient and productive than first one.  If we care someone and involve in each decision, then surly the mind of two or more people produces an  intellectual direction and have much control over the work.

I believe Care & involvement method is more productive than direction & control in taking work from others.

Of course care and involvement as a routine; and direction and control if, and only if, at all; as and when needed.

Dear Dr. Saini,

Thank you for the invitation.

I want my relations with other persons as well as my rights and obligations to be clear in any part of my life and I struggle for this.  

Sometimes in my professional life, I have noticed that the care & involvement method does not work due to its exploitation from persons who do not want clear relations with others and do not justify satisfactorily their salary.

Personally, I prefer the care & involvement method to take work from others as, in my opinion, it is more friendly and more humane.

But, finally, real life determines the more productive method of taking work from others depending, in a high degree, on special circumstances of work environment and moral sense of persons.

Hi Debi, and thanks for this interesting question. 

I'm not an expert in the field of management and business at all, so my answer will be given on the basis of common sense and experience in coordinating/directing job that I've had in my personal careeer. I think that a balance between the two methods is the most feasible answer. Care and involvement are the ideal method in a perfect community, also if when it is possible to share profits and/or common goals and achivements with workers/employees. However, some form of control and direction is advisable when workers are not directly involved with the final results/achievements of the work they are required to do, or when they are a big number and difficult to relate to. Smaller groups can be more easily involved in the care and involvement system.

Sorry about my trivial answer, but this is as far as I can go about to answer this challenging question!

I think, care and involvement, in general, can be more productive at a normal condition. However each of the approaches have their own merits in certain situations. The best approach by large depends on the understanding of the nature of the work to be done, the maturity level of the people we are working with among other things.

I wish to add that in the present era of chaotic competition, the paradigm is shifting from traditional (instrumentalist) model of people management to empowerment model, as most colleagues have observed above. Building cooperation with employees is being used as a neo-unitarist strategy by most enlightened employer by using empowerment interventions. The idea underlying this strategy is keeping trade unions away by creating an engaging atmosphere in the workplace. A a good number of organizations, however,  are still using direction and control, which has the fear of talent running away from such organizations. Some of the most well-known cases of largely using the empowerment model are: Google, South-west Airlines, Lego, Marks & Spenser, IBM, Tatas in India, JetBlue, Delta Airlines.

Dear Tatsuo, The literature in fact is replete with linkage of the empowerment approach to managing people with Japanese Management, where a lot of empowerment,  team building and employee involvement is involved in managing work.

When a leader or convener wants to take work from others, it is preferable to follow the following :

* As a leader show how a particular work is to be done by first doing yourself.

*Then, initiate others, showing the work you have done and assure them that you are with them.

*If somebody errs, be compassionate. Do not reprimand or admonish, because both are counterproductive.

*Be with them till a particular work is completed. 

*Appreciate good work done by other ( if possible reward) in front of all others. This enthuses others who are lackadaisical. 

I would definitely prefer the care an involvement route in most cases, but I agree a balance is required depending on the job and person:

I would use the Skill-Will matrix here. A low skill, low will person does need more direction and control. A low skill high will person definitely needs some guidance and training.

A high skill low will person needs inspiration and motivation. I would make the big picture clear to this person, and spell out what the future may be. A high skill and high will person needs caring and involvement, making the boundaries clear and some autonomy.

More productive can not be always more efficient, if i am right ! So, I go with both the option depending on the problem we are working with !!!

Innovative People leaders for HR

Data Innovative People Leaders for HR

Direction and Involvement model is much better

Involvement fosters commitment; direction and control foster compliance. Compliance requires much more intensive supervision than does commitment which results in motivation and self-supervision.

 You have put it so beautifully, Karen. In today's era of chaotic competition, mere compliance is not enough. One needs to go beyond it to forge engagement of employees so as to give their 100 per cent  to the organization. 

Transactional direction is giving the orders and assuming the participant will follow the dots to a productive end or Transformational directors who not only give the order but show the dots, following the progress of the project and is available should help or encouragement become needed. Either way will produce results, the question is are you willing to mentor and monitor, or do you want a group to be self functioning with little input. The nurturer will seek to make sure the directions are clear and be there to guide. As a guide, the participant feels more empowered, but also understands that they will not fail, because help and guidance is close at hand. If you are a nurturer or hands on leader, motivation and encouragement along the way works for you and your participants best. Your level of trust and anxiety when giving directives will show them the level of trust you have with them and will guide them accordingly. Hope this helps.

It depends on the working psychology of those who do the jobs. The working psychology also depends on time and place. One particular recipe may not be applicable to all individuals. Therefore, before assigning the job, the psychic behavior should relatively be examined 

Direction & control are traditional method of management through transaction by virtue of positional authority. This method of management is hardly motivating as it extracts compliance and not commitment. Care & involvement is a better method, as it is transformational, and motivates employees to become committed to the organizational purpose, and thus organizational goal and personal aspiration are in consonance.  

Most colleagues have said that a mixed method works better. That is indeed true. While the control method focuses on control through systems and procedures, the empowerment method focuses on creation of an ambiance of care, trust and involvement. Some of the best companies use these in 20: 80 ratio. That means, 20 per cent control through systems and processes, and 80 per cent care, communication  and empowerment. Tatas in India mostly use it that way. That is the reason for their high level of employee engagement.

Care  & Involvement is the better method for doing better work. because some time it need controll and direction  for better acheivement of work and task.

It depends on the type of people with whom we are extracting the work. I prefer a direction and control method for people who try to skip out of their responsibilities, new comers/fresher. whereas in case of people who look forward for autonomy,  self-control ans self monitoring personalities, those who expect support from others and people who tries hard to achieve better way is to show care and involvement approach

It depends as my colleagues above have outlined, on the individual leaders, and the conditions. I want a direction & control leader during time sensitive situations, e.g., disaster management. However, for longer term projects, a leader who integrates care & involvement can also integrate direction with SMART goals in a way that motivates employees. Authentic care and involvement leadership is necessary, not lip service, employees can always discern either one. Leaders who are able to blend both spectrum of approaches are rare indeed, and memorable in any workplace.

In India, as per my experience, the IR orientation (direct & control) has given way to HR orientation (Care & involvement) way back since 1990. Many organizations have foot themselves in to empowerment mode through Position & Role Clarification (PRC), Responsibility-Accountability matrices (RAM) , well structured Objective setting (OS) and Compensation & Benefits (C&B).

Yet exceptions still exists in manufacturing sector

I prefer care & involvement , as many prefer to be treated with respect & dignity & give their best to the task assigned to them . In some , direction & control is essential as they tend to evade work & need to be monitored . It also depends also on leadership , as some of them exert their authority & utilize control to get work done . They demoralize  creative workers & there is decline in quality of work . It is emotional intelligence to utilize care & involvement which ultimately succeeds over authoritarian behaviour of managers .

It seems that most people who do the real job prefer care and involvement for reason mentioned above by others. However, the reality is that direction and control seems to predominate in scientific projects. Things need to change...

Karen Yong makes a very good point @ effective leadership for crisis management vs effective leadership for transformational change. Her point brought to mind Paul Hersey's work on "Situational Leadership" which has been further studied by Ken Blanchard. A good overview and summary of the literature can be found in Leadership Quarterly, 8( 1). 67-84 in an article by Fernandez and Vecchio

theoretically all the soft models of HRM suggest employee involvement to attain organisational goals, but we have people with different attitudes at work place. Some work by themselves and others need to be supervised and controlled. So I think leaders, who have traits of both transformational and transactional leaders sholuld exercise these traits depending upon subordinates' attitude towards the work.

Many managers think that empowerment is just a cool managerial concept and antagonistic to more traditional methods. I firmly believe that empowerment requires some level of supervision. Otherwise, there is a risk of dangerous autonomy that would deprive the effectiveness of the efforts. For instance, empowerment is often linked to innovation, perhaps due to its intrinsic character that supports creativity and critical thinking. However, if innovation conceived as a process is not managed adequately, the initial losses in quality derived from among other reasons, poor requirements management or project management would increase in later stages exponentially.

Going back to your question, high level of standardization and low complexity of the processes sometimes require a more traditional approach to achieve high productivity.

In much more complex scenarios as that above, I don´t think that empowerment is longer an option but an obligation for every company which wants to achieve competitive advantage ( for instance, though a superior customer relationship). Though, empowerment does not grow in the vacuum. Consequently, in case any organization would like to implement it correctly, key factors such as for instance organizational culture (behaviors, values, etc.) structures (flatness), leadership style (developmental, supportive) and HR (job descriptions, performance management) should strive the implementation of this management approach.

Dear Sir

What I feel that the choice of methods depend mainly upon the kind of individual and situation. No method can be generalized universally or mostly a blend of both method will be required. As individuals who are new to system should be shown care and involvement but they also need proper direction and then control. Similarly, those who are experience and know their work well need to be involved rigorously so as to get work done and again somewhat control is also required to get the work done in time as these employees also develop the habit of procrastination.

Which method of taking work from others is more productive: i) direction & control; or ii) Care & involvement?

i think the method to use is depending on several factors which include 1) types of the people / workers, 2) types of manager's power, 3) manager's strategy as well as 4) the situation both the manager & workers are in.  E.g.:

To get work from others or deligation of work can be effectively done only when deligator does his/her part with care & involvement.

Care & Involvement

https://www.proofhub.com/articles/how-to-improve-team-productivity