One of the
major criticisms against Quality Circle (QC) for example, is that managers and
workers are skeptical of the programme because, they view it as simply a fad
that is being imposed on them. Supervisor may also tend to be nervous about
such a programme, viewing it as a threat to their authority. (Robins and Judge,
2007)
Moreover,
employees who volunteer for QCs may wish to air complaints against management
or discuss issues such as wages and benefits, which is exclusive resolve for
management, when
employees discover this no go-area, they become disillusioned
about the dept of management commitment to the participation (Cynthia et:al;
2007).
Another major
problem with QCs, especially early in the programme, is that they stretch the
volunteerism concept. When circles are just being formed, they require much
time and effort, something workers might be unprepared for (Meyer and Stott,
1985).
In the case of
team working, the following are said to be some of its major shortcomings:
§
Individual team members opt out or are allowed
to opt out, leaving the others to do the work.
§
Disagreements are frequent and often relate to
personalities and difference of opinion rather than reasoned discussion of
alternative points of view.
§
There is little flexibility in the way in which
team members operate, people tend to use a limited range of skills or specific
tasks, and there is little evidence of multi-skilling.
§
The team leader dominates the team, more
attention is given to who takes control rather than getting the work done.
§
The team determines its own standards and norms
which may not be accord with the standards and norms of the organization
(Armstrong 2006).
An insecure
environment coupled with restructuring measures and the possibility of threats
of job losses are likely to induce workers compliance with participatory
programmes, and not the attitude change required for workers commitment to the
goals of the organizations. Brown
et:al; (1993) and White et:al; (2003) alluded to these when they opined that
“contradictory restructuring measures may obscure or even negate any positive
outcome associated with participation.
Tynan (1980),
Gamson and Levine (1984) and Forsyth’s (1990) all contended that participation
can increase level of conflict in organizations, if the above assumption is
true, therefore the popular view that “participation induces a more harmonious
labour relations climate and thus leads to attitude changes among the work-force,
resulting in a more motivated and ultimately more productive and creative work
force for serious doubt.
Another major
criticism against team participation is its lack of standardized variables, as
it typically is when comparing the result of field studies (Adam 1991).
An empirical
analysis of skill-based pay by (Murray and Gerhart, 1998) criticizes the system
thus or presented the following as the disadvantages of the system.
1.
Though the plan will likely enhance skill acquisition,
the organization may find it difficult to use the new skills effectively.
Without careful planning, the organization may find itself with large new
labour costs but little payoff.
2.
Skilled based plan may generate to a large bureaucracy.
3.
As it the challenges in obtaining market rates under a
job based system were not enough, there is almost no body of knowledge
regarding how to price combination of skills (versus jobs) in the markets.