Jump to content

Workplace democracy: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Notinasnaid (talk | contribs)
13,255 edits
m Remove surplus character
Removed "Socialism" sidebar, since socialism is never mentioned in this article.
 
(368 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Application of democratic principles to places of work}}
'''Workplace democracy''' is the application of [[democracy]] in all its forms (including [[voting system]]s, [[debate]]s, [[democratic structuring]], [[due process]], [[adversarial process]], systems of appeal, and so on) to the [[workplace]].
{{More citations needed|date=October 2022}}
{{Democracy}}
{{Communitarianism sidebar|ideas}}
{{Progressivism sidebar|ideas}}
{{Anarcho-syndicalism sidebar}}
'''Workplace democracy''' is the application of [[democracy]] in various forms to the [[workplace]], such as [[voting]] systems, [[debate]]s, democratic structuring, [[due process]], adversarial process, and systems of [[appeal]]. It can be implemented in a variety of ways, depending on the size, culture, and other variables of an organization.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Rayasam |first=Renuka |date=24 April 2008 |title=Why Workplace Democracy Can Be Good Business |journal=[[U.S. News & World Report]] |url=https://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2008/04/24/why-workplace-democracy-can-be-good-business |access-date=2021-06-24}}</ref><ref name="williams1">{{cite web|title=The Case of Marland Mold |publisher=Center for Learning in Action|url=https://learning-in-action.williams.edu/breaking-the-mold/the-case-of-marland-mold |access-date=2018-09-16}}</ref>


==Theory==
It usually involves or requires more use of lateral methods like [[arbitration]] when workplace disputes arise, but these are often carried out far more efficiently than the high-overhead methods common in undemocratic workplaces.
===Economic argument===
From as early as the 1920s, scholars have been exploring the idea of increasing employee participation and involvement. They sought to learn whether including employees in organizational decision-making would lead to increased effectiveness and productivity within the organization. According to Lewin, individuals who are involved in decision-making also have increased openness to change.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1177/017084069401500202|title = CEO Attitudes as Determinants of Organization Design: An Integrated Model| journal=Organization Studies| volume=15| issue=2| pages=183–212|year = 1994|last1 = Lewin|first1 = Arie Y.| last2=Stephens| first2=Carroll U.|s2cid = 144237046}}</ref> Different participative techniques can have either a stronger impact on morale than productivity, while others have the reverse effect. Success of the employee-owned and operated [[Mondragon Corporation|Mondragon]] suggests economic benefits from workplace democracy.


===Citizenship argument===
== History ==
Workplace democracy may encourage public participation in a government's political process. Skills developed from democracy in the workplace can transfer to improved citizenship and result in a better functioning democracy.<ref>{{cite book |title=The theory of democratic elitism: a critique |last=Bachrach |first=P. |location=Boston, MA |publisher=Little, Brown |date=1967 |isbn=978-0-316-07485-8}}</ref> Workers in a democratic environment may also develop a greater concern for the common good, which also transfers to fundamental citizenship.


===Ethical justification===
Workplace democracy has a long history and arguably is much more basic and common to human work organization than is hierarchy.
Philosopher [[Robert Dahl]] claims that, "If democracy is justified in governing the state, it must also be justified in governing economic enterprises."<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1177/0951692890002001005|title = Theorizing about Workplace Democracy Robert Dahl and the Cooperatives of Mondragón| journal=Journal of Theoretical Politics| volume=2| pages=109–126|year = 1990|last1 = Zirakzabeh|first1 = Cyrus Ernesto|s2cid = 145142694}}</ref> Some political scientists have questioned whether the state-firm analogy is the most appropriate way to justify workplace democratization.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Frega|first=Roberto|date=2020-06-01|title=Against Analogy|url=http://berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/democratic-theory/7/1/dt070102.xml|journal=Democratic Theory|volume=7|issue=1|pages=1–26|doi=10.3167/dt.2020.070102|s2cid=235862817 |issn=2332-8894}} but contrast {{Cite journal|last=Vrousalis|first=Nicholas|date=2019-10-01|title=Workplace Democracy Entails Economic Democracy|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josp.12275|journal=Journal of Social Philosophy|volume=50|issue=1|pages=526–42|doi=10.1111/josp.12275|s2cid=150787360 |hdl=1887/86062|hdl-access=free}}</ref>


===Employee power and representation===
=== Associated with ideologies ===
Workers working for democratic leaders report positive results such as group member satisfaction, friendliness, group mindedness, 'we' statements, worker motivation, creativity, and dedication to decisions made within an organization.<ref name=":0">Northouse, P. G. (2015). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice (3rd ed). Kalamazoo, MI: SAGE Publications. 978-1-4833-1276-7</ref>


When workplace democracy is used the effect typically is raised employee potential, employee representation, higher [[autonomy]], and equal power within an organization (Rolfsen, 2011).
These methods are often seen as associated with [[trade union]]s or [[syndicalism]] (or more lately [[eco-syndicalism]]), or in extreme forms [[anarcho-syndicalism]].


==Political association==
Most unions have democratic structures at least for selecting the leader, and sometimes these are seen as providing the only democratic aspects of work. However, unions are not everywhere, and not every workplace that lacks a union lacks democracy, and not every workplace that has a union necessarily has a democratic way to resolve disputes.
Workplace democracy theory closely follows political democracy, especially in larger workplaces. Democratic workplace organization is often associated with [[trade unions]], [[Anarchism|anarchist]], and [[Socialism|socialist]] (especially [[Libertarian socialism|libertarian socialist]]) movements. Most unions have democratic structures at least for selecting the leader, and sometimes these are seen as providing the only democratic aspects to the workplace. Not every workplace that lacks a union lacks democracy, and not every workplace that has a union necessarily has a democratic way to resolve disputes.<ref name="autogenerated1">{{cite web|author=G. William Domhoff |url=https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/history_of_labor_unions.html |title=Who Rules America: The Rise and Fall of Labor Unions in the U.S |publisher=Whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu |access-date=2018-09-16}}</ref>


However, some unions have historically been more committed to it than others. The [[Industrial Workers of the World]] pioneered the archetypal workplace democracy model, the '''Wobbly Shop''', in which recallable delegates were elected by workers, and other norms of [[grassroots democracy]] were applied. This is still used in some organizations, notably [[Ricardo Semler|Semco]] and in the software industry.
Historically, some unions have been more committed to workplace democracy than others. The [[Industrial Workers of the World]] pioneered the archetypal workplace democracy model, the Wobbly Shop, in which recallable delegates were elected by workers, and other norms of grassroots democracy were applied. This is still used in some organizations, notably Semco and in the software industry.


Spanish anarchists, Mohandas Gandhi's [[Swadeshi movement|Swadeshi]] movement, and farm and retail co-operative movements, all made contributions to the theory and practice of workplace democracy and often carried that into the political arena as a "more participatory democracy." The [[Green party|Green parties]] worldwide have adopted workplace democracy as a central platform, and also often mimic workplace democracy norms such as gender equity, co-leadership, deliberative democracy applied to any major decision, and leaders who don't do policy. The [[Democratic socialism|democratic socialist parties]] have supported the notion of workplace democracy and democratically controlled institutions.
=== Studied by management science ===


The best known and most studied example of a successfully democratic national labor union in the United States are the [[United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America]],{{Citation needed|date=July 2018}} known throughout the labor movement as the UE. An independent trade Union, the UE was built from the bottom-up, and takes pride in its motto that "The Members Run This Union!"<ref name="autogenerated1"/>
[[Industrial and organizational psychology]] and even more formal [[management science]] has studied the
methods of workplace democracy. They are just that, methods, and do not imply any particular [[political movement]], agenda, theory, or ideology: There are many [[management science]] papers on the application of [[democratic structuring]], in particular, to the workplace, and the benefits of it. Such benefits are usually compared to simple [[command hierarchy]] arrangements in which "the boss" can hire anyone and fire anyone, and takes absolute and total responsibility for all that occurs "under" them.


The [[Menshevik]] led [[Democratic Republic of Georgia]] experimented with workplace democracy by promoting cooperatives in the economy. These cooperatives were ended when Georgia was annexed into the [[Soviet Union]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/forgotten-democratic-socialist-republic-georgia|title = The Forgotten Democratic Socialist Republic of Georgia}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.zedbooks.net/blog/posts/10865/|title=ACADEMIC: Politics & International Relations: Books: Bloomsbury Publishing (UK)}}</ref>
=== Early theory ===


In Sweden, the [[Swedish Social Democratic Party]] made laws and reforms from 1950-70 to establish more democratic workplaces.<ref>{{Citation|title=The Origins and Myths of the Swedish Model of Workplace Democracy|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/9BC3465BED4345ABCC64289DF6B6ACB9/S0960777314000423a.pdf/div-class-title-the-origins-and-myths-of-the-swedish-model-of-workplace-democracy-div.pdf}}</ref>
20th century pioneers of workplace democracy include the early Belgian advocates of [[syndicalism]] who argued that workers had more knowledge but less control of the workplace than they had of major political decisions (where they at least had a vote and the right to be heard even if they knew nothing about the situation). Of these theorists the most influential, [[de Paepe]], is often considered as a peer or competitor to [[Karl Marx]]'s concept of the workplace as merely a cauldron and test for the [[proletariat]].


[[Salvador Allende]] championed a [[Cordón industrial|large number of such experiments]] in Chile when he became president of Chile in 1970.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/06/archives/allende-chilean-marxist-wins-vote-for-presidency-allende-chilean.html|title=Allende, Chilean Marxist, Wins Vote for Presidency|last=Onis|first=Juan de|date=1970-09-06|work=The New York Times|access-date=2019-03-07|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>
=== Relation to political theory ===


==Current approaches==
However, workplace democracy theory closely follows political, especially where businesses are large or politics is small:
===Limits on management===
{{Unreferenced section|date=October 2022}}
{{Cleanup rewrite|2=section|date=October 2022}}
Many{{quantify|date=June 2018}} organizations began to realize by the 1960s that tight control by too few people was encouraging [[groupthink]], increasing turnover in staff and a loss of morale among qualified people helpless to appeal what they saw as misguided, uninformed, or poorly thought-out decisions. Often{{quantify|date=June 2018}} employees who publicly criticize such poor decision making of their higher management are penalized or even fired from their jobs on some pretext or other. The comic strip ''[[Dilbert]]'' has become popular satirizing this type of oblivious management, iconically represented by the [[Pointy-haired Boss]], a nameless and clueless social climber. The [[Dilbert principle]] has been accepted as fact by some.{{by whom|date=June 2018}}


Much [[management philosophy]] has focused on trying to limit manager power, differentiate [[leadership]] versus management, and so on. Henry Mintzberg, Peter Drucker and Donella Meadows were three very notable theorists addressing these concerns in the 1980s. Mintzberg and Drucker studied how executives spent their time, Meadows how change and leverage to resist it existed at all levels in all kinds of organizations.
[[Spanish anarchist]]s, [[Mohandas Gandhi]], farm and retail [[co-operative]] movements, all made contributions to the theory and practice of workplace democracy and often carried that into the political arena as a "more [[participatory democracy]]". The [[Green Parties worldwide]] adopted this as one of their [[Four Pillars]] and also often mimic workplace democracy norms such as [[gender equity]], [[co-leadership]], [[deliberative democracy]] applied to any major decision, and leaders who don't do policy.


[[Adhocracy]], [[functional leadership model]]s and [[business process reengineering|reengineering]] were all attempts to detect and remove administrative incompetence. Business process and quality management methods in general remove managerial flexibility that is often perceived as masking managerial mistakes, but also preventing transparency and facilitating fraud, as in [[Enron scandal|the case of Enron]]. Had managers been more accountable to employees, it is argued,{{by whom|date=June 2018}} owners and employees would not have been defrauded.
Politically, [[Salvador Allende]] inspired a large number of such experiments in [[Chile]] before his [[assassination]] by forces of General [[Pinochet]] on [[September 11]], [[1973]]. The book ''Brain of the Firm'' by [[Stafford Beer]] details experiments in workplace feedback that exploited [[systems theory]] extensively.


== Current approaches ==
=== Equity model ===
In the equity model, employees own voting shares of their company, most commonly through an [[employee stock ownership]] plan. The equity model of workplace democracy exists when bottom-up practices, such as [[participatory management]], are combined with the top-down influence provided by their voting rights.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://learning-in-action.williams.edu/breaking-the-mold/what-is-workplace-democracy/|title=What is Workplace Democracy?}}</ref>


=== Limits of management ===
=== Codetermination ===
{{main | Codetermination in Germany}}
{{Unreferenced section|date=October 2022}}
[[German law]] specifically mandates [[Co-determination|democratic worker participation]] in the oversight of workplaces with 2000 or more employees. Similar laws exist in Denmark for businesses with more than 20 workers and France for businesses with more than 5000 workers.


=== Staff and Worker Representative Congresses ===
Many organizations began by the 1960s to realize that tight control by too few people was creating [[groupthink]], [[turnover]] in staff and a loss of [[morale]] among qualified people helpless to appeal what they saw as stupid decisions. The comic strip [[Dilbert]] has become popular satirizing this type of oblivious [[management]], the icon for which is the [[Pointy Haired Boss]], a nameless and clueless social climber. [[The Dilbert Principle]] is now generally accepted.
{{update|section|reason=Sources needed for the situation as of the 2010s and 2020s: were SWRCs still legally in place? were they still effective? did they become more effective or less effective?|date=September 2024}}
In [[China]], a form of workplace democracy is mandated by law for [[State-owned enterprises of China|state-owned enterprises]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/lawsdata/chineselaw/200303/20030300072563.shtml|title=Law on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole People -}}</ref> and permitted in non-state-owned collectives and companies. This is done through Staff and Worker Representative Congresses (SWRCs), composed of workers directly elected by all workers in the workplace to represent them. As of the 1980s and 1990s, SWRCs were, in theory, broadly similar to continental European and Japanese workers' workplace councils in terms of rights and powers and consensus building, as opposed to the Anglo-American model "adversarial model" relating management and workers. Findings from interviews in 1997 suggested that in practice, SWRCs did have some real power, including some cases of dismissing managers.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Zhu|last1=Xiaoyang|first2=Anita|last2=Chan|url=http://bellschool.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/IPS/PSC/CCC/publications/papers/Anita_Staff_and_Workers_Rep_Congress_pdf.pdf |journal=[[Chinese Sociology and Anthropology]]|volume=37|pages=6–33|date=2005|title=Staff and Workers' Representative Congress|doi=10.1080/21620555.2005.11038349 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613151932/http://bellschool.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/IPS/PSC/CCC/publications/papers/Anita_Staff_and_Workers_Rep_Congress_pdf.pdf |archive-date=2020-06-13}}</ref>


=== Examples of companies organized by workplace democracy ===
Much [[management philosophy]] has focused on trying to limit manager power, differentiate [[leadership versus management]], and so on. [[Henry Mintzberg]], [[Peter Drucker]] and [[Donella Meadows]] were three very notable theorists addressing these concerns in the 1980s. Mintzberg and Drucker studied how executives spent their time, Meadows how change and leverage to resist it existed at all levels in all kinds of organizations.
====Mondragon====
[[Mondragon Corporation|Mondragon Cooperative Corporation]] is a large worker cooperative based in Spain, legally considered to be corporation. [[Richard D. Wolff|The Marxian economist Richard D. Wolff]] describes it as "a stunningly successful alternative to the [[capitalist]] organization of production".<ref name="Guardian_Yes_alternative_Mondragon">{{cite Q|Q127831350|url-status=live}}</ref>


====Marland Mold====
[[Adhocracy]], [[functional leadership model]]s, and [[reengineering]] were all attempts to detect and
Marland Mold was a company started in 1946 in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, by Severino Marchetto and Paul Ferland. The company at first, designed and built steel molds for plastic products throughout the 1950s and 60s. In 1969 the owners sold the company to VCA which was later bought by The Ethyl Corporation. The Marland Mold employees voted to join the [[International Union of Electrical Workers]], because of a dispute that took place over health insurance. The plant's manager started to pay less attention and put less time into the Pittsfield plant so the profits declined. The plant was put up for sale in 1992. The employees ended up buying out the plant, even though they weren't fans of employee ownership before, they needed to save their jobs. There immediately was a burst in production and they were able to produce molds that normally took the 3,000 hours to make in 2,200 hours. They had financial stake in the company now which gave them new motivation for the company's success. The other two ideas that were key components to their success was the education of all members about their new roles, and building an ownership culture within the organization. In 1995, they had officially bought all ownership stock and buyout lenders and the company was completely employee owned. Through all of this employees were also able to gain a broader perspective on the company, like being able to understand others views of different conflicts in the workplace. In 2007, Marland Mold celebrated their 15th anniversary of employee ownership.<ref name="williams1"/>
remove [[administrative incompetence]]. [[Business process]] and [[quality management]] methods in
general remove [[managerial flexibility]] that is often perceived as masking managerial mistakes, but
also preventing [[Transparency (humanities)|transparency]] and facilitating [[fraud]], as in the case of [[Enron]]. Had managers
been more accountable to employees, it is argued, owners and employees would not have been defrauded.


In 2010, Marland Mold were acquired by Curtil.<ref>{{cite web |title=Marland Mold, Inc,: Private Company Information | website=[[Bloomberg News]] |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=6906486 |access-date=30 March 2019}}</ref> In 2017, the Pittsfield plant was shut.<ref>{{cite web |title=French firm to close Curtil Marland Mold in Pittsfield; 40 positions lost |date=16 February 2017 |url=https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/french-firm-to-close-curtil-marland-mold-in-pittsfield-40-positions-lost,498475 |access-date=30 March 2019}}</ref>
=== Influenced matrix management ===


====Semco====
[[Managerial grid model]]s and [[matrix management]], compromises between true
In the 1980s, [[Brazil]]ian businessman [[Ricardo Semler]], converted his family firm, a light manufacturing concern called Semco, and transformed it into a strictly democratic establishment where managers were interviewed and then elected by workers. All managerial decisions were subject to democratic review, debate and vote, with the full participation of all workers. This radical approach to management got him and the company a great deal of attention. Semler argued that handing the company over to the workers was the only way to free time for himself to go build up the customer, government and other relationships required to make the company grow. By giving up the fight to hold any control of internals, Semler was able to focus on marketing, positioning, and offer his advice (as a paid, elected spokesman, though his position as major shareholder was not so negotiable) as if he were, effectively, an outside management consultant hired by the company. Decentralization of management functions, he claimed, gave him a combination of insider information and outsider credibility, plus the legitimacy of truly speaking for his workers in the same sense as an elected political leader.<ref name="mallenbaker1">{{cite web|url=http://mallenbaker.net/article/inspiring-people/ricardo-semler-the-radical-boss-who-proved-that-workplace-democracy-works |title=Ricardo Semler: The radical boss who proved that workplace democracy works &#124; Mallen Baker's Respectful Business Blog |publisher=Mallenbaker.net |date=2017-01-03 |access-date=2018-09-16}}</ref>
workplace democracy and conventional top-down hierarchy, became common in the 1990s.
These models cross responsibilities so that no one manager had total control of any one
employee, or so that technical and marketing management were not subordinated to each other but had to argue out their concerns more mutually. A consequence of this was the rise of [[learning organization]] theory, in which the [[ontology]] of definitions in common among all factions or professions becomes the main management problem.


==== Other companies ====
[[London Business School]] chief [[Nigel Nicholson]] in his 1998 [[Harvard Business Review]] paper ''[[How Hardwired is Human Behavior]]?'' suggested that [[human nature]] was just as likely to cause problems in the workplace as in larger social and political settings, and that similar methods were required to deal with stressful situations and difficult problems. He held up the workplace democracy model advanced by [[Ricardo Semler]] as the "only" one that actually took cognizance of human foibles.


* [[Brukman factory|Brukman]]
=== Semler and Semco ===
* [[Egged (company)|Egged]] (formerly)
* [[Evergreen Cooperatives]]
* [[FaSinPat]]
*[[:pt:Flaskô|Flaskô (Portuguese Wikipedia)]]
* [[Hotel Bauen]]
* [[Indian Coffee House]]
* [[LIP (company)|LIP]]
* [[Pascual Boing]]
* [[Sri Lanka Transport Board]] (formerly)
* [[Suma Wholefoods]]
* [[Tandanor|Tandanor shipyard]]
* [[Triumph Engineering|The Meriden Motorcycle Co-operative]]
* [[W. L. Gore and Associates]]
* [[Zapatista coffee cooperatives]]


== Research on workplace democracy ==
[[Ricardo Semler|Semler]], in his own book ''Maverick'', explained how he took his family firm in [[Brazil]], a light manufacturing concern called '''Semco''', and transformed it into a strictly democratic firm where [[manager]]s were interviewed and then elected by workers, where all decisions were subject to democratic review, debate and vote, and where every worker was expected to justify themselves to their peers. This radical approach to [[total quality management]] got him and the company a great deal of attention. Semler argued that handing the company over to the workers was the only way to [[free time]] for himself to go build up the [[customer]], [[government]] and other relationships required to make the company grow. By literally giving up the fight to hold any control of internals, Semler was able to focus on marketing, positioning, and offer his advice (as a paid, elected, spokesman, though his position as major shareholder was not so negotiable) as if he were, effectively, an outside [[management consultant]]. [[Decentralisation]] of management functions, he claimed, gave him a combination of insider information and outsider credibility, plus the legitimacy of truly speaking for his workers in the same sense as an elected political leader.
===Public opinion===
A 2023 study in the United States found that the people surveyed generally support workplace democracy, even in survey experiments where respondents are exposed to question framings that emphasize the costs of workplace democracy.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mazumder |first1=Soumyajit |last2=Yan |first2=Alan N. |date=2023 |title=What Do Americans Want from (Private) Government? Experimental Evidence Demonstrates that Americans Want Workplace Democracy |journal=American Political Science Review |volume=118 |issue=2 |pages=1020–1036 |language=en |doi=10.1017/S0003055423000667 |issn=0003-0554|doi-access=free }}</ref>


===Management science studies===
The book ends with twenty pages of [[cartoon]]s that constitute Semco's only employee manual. They explain such things as the company's attitudes to women and their advancement, managers and their role, sales and operations, technology, and read somewhat like the rationale of a nonprofit or political party.
There are many management science papers on the application of democratic structuring to the workplace, and its benefits.


Benefits are often contrasted to simple [[command hierarchy]] arrangements in which "the boss" can hire anyone and fire anyone, and takes absolute and total responsibility for their own well-being and also all that occurs "under" them. The command hierarchy is a preferred management style followed in many companies for its simplicity, speed and low process overheads.
Nicholson's analysis was more academic and conventional and focused on many other detailed problems of human behaviour and [[dispute resolution]], which he claimed Semler had resolved.


London Business School chief, Nigel Nicholson, in his 1998 [[Harvard Business]] Review paper: "How Hardwired is Human Behavior?" suggested that human nature was just as likely to cause problems in the workplace as in larger social and political settings, and that similar methods were required to deal with stressful situations and difficult problems. He held up the workplace democracy model advanced by Ricardo Semler as the "only" one that actually took cognizance of human foibles.<ref>{{Cite journal | url=https://hbr.org/1998/07/how-hardwired-is-human-behavior | title=How Hardwired is Human Behavior?| journal=Harvard Business Review| date=July 1998| last1=Nicholson| first1=Nigel| volume=76| issue=4| pages=134–147| pmid=10181587}}</ref>
=== Venezuela ===
Venezuela has instituted worker-run "co-management" initiatives in which worker councils are the cornerstone of the management of a plant or factory. In co-management experiments such as at the Alcasa factory, both workers and strategists take part in management discussions and decision, with one elected representative from each functional area work together amid reams of statistics, charts sketched on the white board and scale models (BBC News, 17 August 2005, [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4155936.stm]] last visited 9/22/06).


=== Effects on productivity ===
== versus Taylorism ==
A meta-analysis of 43 studies on worker participation found there was no negative correlation between workplace democracy and higher efficiency and productivity.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Doucouliagos|first=Chris|date=October 1995|title=Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis|url=http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Cooperatives/Worker_Participation_and_Productivity-Meta_Analysis.pdf|journal=Industrial and Labor Relations Review|volume=49|pages=58–77|doi=10.1177/001979399504900104|s2cid=58906938|via=United Diversity}}</ref> A report looking at research on democratic workplaces in the USA, Europe and Latin America found workplace democracy had staff working 'better and smarter' with production organized more efficiently. They were also able to organize more efficiently on a larger scale and in more capital-intensive industries than hierarchical workplaces.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Pérotin|first=Virginie|date=|title=What do we really know about worker co-operatives?|url=https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/2020-10/worker_co-op_report.pdf|access-date=2023-09-22}}</ref> A 1987 study of democratic workplaces in Italy, the UK and France found that workplace democracy has a positive relationship with productivity and that democratic firms do not get less productive as they get larger.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Estrin|first1=Saul|last2=Jones|first2=Derek C|last3=Svejnar|first3=Jan|date=1987-03-01|title=The productivity effects of worker participation: Producer cooperatives in western economies|journal=Journal of Comparative Economics|language=en|volume=11|issue=1|pages=40–61|doi=10.1016/0147-5967(87)90040-0|issn=0147-5967}}</ref> A report on democratic workplaces in the USA found that they can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses and have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation.<ref>{{Cite web|title=WORKER COOPERATIVES: PATHWAYS TO SCALE|url=https://democracycollaborative.org/sites/default/files/downloads/WorkerCoops-PathwaysToScale.pdf|last=Abell|first=Hilary|date=June 2014|website=The Democracy Collaborative|access-date=2020-05-07|archive-date=2022-02-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220228142418/https://democracycollaborative.org/sites/default/files/downloads/WorkerCoops-PathwaysToScale.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> A 1995 study of workplace democracy in the timber industry in the Northwest United States found that productivity increased by 6 to 14% with workplace democracy.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Participation and Productivity: A Comparison of Worker Cooperatives and Conventional Firms in the Plywood Industry|url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf|journal=Brookings Papers: Microeconomics 1995}}</ref> A 2006 meta-study on workplace democracy found that it can 'equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership' and 'enrich local social capital.'<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Logue|first1=John|last2=Yates|first2=Jacquelyn S.|date=2006-11-01|title=Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization|journal=Economic and Industrial Democracy|language=en|volume=27|issue=4|pages=686–690|doi=10.1177/0143831X06069019|s2cid=153938396|issn=0143-831X}}</ref> Another 2006 study reviewing existing evidence found that contrary to the popular idea that worker participation would decrease productivity, it actually increases it.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Levin |first=Henry M. |date=2006-03-01 |title=Worker Democracy and Worker Productivity |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0002-z |journal=Social Justice Research |language=en |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=109–121 |doi=10.1007/s11211-006-0002-z |s2cid=19971458 |issn=1573-6725}}</ref> A 1985 study in France that the typical increase to productivity from workplace democracy was about 5%.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Defourney |first1=Jacques |last2=Estrin |first2=Saul |last3=Jones |first3=Derek C. |date=1985-06-01 |title=The effects of workers' participation on enterprise performance: Empirical evidence from French cooperatives |url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-7187%2885%2990004-9 |journal=International Journal of Industrial Organization |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=197–217 |doi=10.1016/0167-7187(85)90004-9 |issn=0167-7187}}</ref> Another 2022 study using data from France found workplace democracy increases economic performance in knowledge-heavy sectors.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Young-Hyman |first1=Trevor |last2=Magne |first2=Nathalie |last3=Kruse |first3=Douglas |date=July 2023 |title=A Real Utopia Under What Conditions? The Economic and Social Benefits of Workplace Democracy in Knowledge-Intensive Industries |url=https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2022.1622 |journal=Organization Science |language=en |volume=34 |issue=4 |pages=1353–1382 |doi=10.1287/orsc.2022.1622 |issn=1047-7039}}</ref>


However, a 1986 study of plywood companies in the USA found democratic workplaces lost productivity due to them hiring more workers who were not given equal democratic rights compared to original workers.<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Grunberg |first=Leon |date=1986-01-01 |title=Safety, Productivity and the Social Relations in Production: An Empirical Study of Worker Cooperatives |url=https://doi.org/10.1108/eb013025 |journal=International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=87–102 |doi=10.1108/eb013025 |issn=0144-333X}}</ref> Another study looking at evidence of construction companies in the 1980s indicated that democratic workplaces had equal or lower productivity compared to other workplaces.<ref>{{Citation |last=Jones |first=Derek C. |title=The Productive Efficiency of Italian Producer Cooperatives: Evidence from Conventional and Cooperative Firms |date=2007-01-01 |work=Cooperative Firms in Global Markets |volume=10 |pages=3–28 |editor-last=Novkovic |editor-first=Sonja |url=https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-3339(06)10001-0 |access-date=2024-02-25 |series=Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory & Labor-Managed Firms |publisher=Emerald Group Publishing Limited |doi=10.1016/S0885-3339(06)10001-0 |isbn=978-0-7623-1389-1 |editor2-last=Sena |editor2-first=Vania}}</ref>
A more political approach to workplace reforms was advocated in ''Closing The Iron Cage: The Scientific Management of Work and Leisure'' by Canadian [[sociologist]] [[Ed Andrew]] based on [[Max Weber]]'s notion "that the spirit of [[capitalism]] envelopes our activities like an '''iron cage''', that the ubiquitous structure of [[technical rationality]] appears as an iron cage to those who live in it."


=== Effects on business longevity ===
Andrew critiques [[Frederick Winslow Taylor]] and so-called [[Taylorism]] that has grown up - beyond limits that Taylor himself would not have advocated - to become a "scientific management of leisure."
According to an analysis, businesses with democratic workplaces in [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], and [[Quebec]] in the 2000s were almost half as likely as businesses with hierarchical workplaces to fail in ten years.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|title=Worker Cooperatives Performance and Success Factors|url=https://www.co-oplaw.org/special-topics/worker-cooperatives-performance-and-success-factors/|website=Co-opLaw.org|date=22 October 2014 |language=en-US|access-date=2020-05-15}}</ref> According to an analysis of all businesses in Uruguay between 1997 - 2009, businesses with democratic workplaces have a 29% smaller chance of closure than other firms.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Burdín|first=Gabriel|date=January 2014|title=Are Worker-Managed Firms More Likely to Fail Than Conventional Enterprises? Evidence from Uruguay|journal=ILR Review|language=en-US|volume=67|issue=1|pages=202–238|doi=10.1177/001979391406700108|s2cid=154970350|issn=0019-7939}}</ref> In Italy, businesses with democratic workplaces that have been created by workers buying a business when it's facing a closure or put up to sale have a 3 year survival rate of 87%, compared to 48% of all Italian businesses.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The path to worker buyouts: Does the UK need its own 'Marcora Law'?|url=https://www.thenews.coop/97306/sector/retail/path-worker-buyouts-uk-need-marcora-law/ |work=[[Co-op News]] |date=7 September 2015}}</ref> In 2005, 1% of German businesses failed but the statistic for businesses with democratic workplaces was less than 0.1%.<ref name=":2" /> A 2012 study of Spanish and French businesses with democratic workplaces found that they “have been more resilient than conventional enterprises during the economic crisis."<ref name=":2" /> In France, the three year survival rate of businesses with democratic workplaces is 80%-90%, compared to the 66% overall survival rate for all businesses.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Olsen|first=E.K.|date=2013-01-01|title=The relative survival of worker cooperatives and barriers to their creation|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287576212|journal=Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms|volume=14|pages=83–107|doi=10.1108/S0885-3339(2013)0000014005|isbn=978-1-78190-750-4}}</ref> During the 2008 economic crisis, the number of workers in businesses with democratic workplaces in France increased by 4.2%, while employment in other businesses decreased by 0.7%.<ref>{{Cite web|title=The resilience of the cooperative model|url=https://issuu.com/cicopa/docs/report_cecop_2012_en_web|website=Issuu|date=14 December 2014 |language=en|access-date=2020-05-15}}</ref>


=== Effects on workers ===
Andrew asks provocative questions such as:
A 2018 study from [[South Korea]] found that workers had higher motivation in democratic workplaces.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Park|first=Rhokeun|date=2018-01-29|title=Responses to job demands: moderating role of worker cooperatives|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322782065|journal=Employee Relations|volume=40|issue=2|pages=346–361|doi=10.1108/ER-06-2017-0137}}</ref> A 2014 study from [[Italy]] found that democratic workplaces were the only kind of workplace which increased trust between workers.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Sabatini|first1=Fabio|last2=Modena|first2=Francesca|last3=Tortia|first3=Ermanno|date=2014|title=Do cooperative enterprises create social trust?|url=https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/sbusec/v42y2014i3p621-641.html|journal=Small Business Economics|language=en|volume=42|issue=3|pages=621–641|doi=10.1007/s11187-013-9494-8|s2cid=16528387|hdl=10419/142639|hdl-access=free}}</ref> A 2013 study from the [[United States]] found that democratic workplaces in the healthcare industry had significantly higher levels of job satisfaction.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Berry|first=D.P.|date=2013-01-01|title=Effects of cooperative membership and participation in decision making on job satisfaction of home health aides|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289325273|journal=Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms|volume=14|pages=3–25|doi=10.1108/S0885-3339(2013)0000014002|isbn=978-1-78190-750-4}}</ref> A 2011 study in [[France]] found that democratic workplaces “had a positive effect on workers’ job satisfaction.”<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Castel|first1=Davy|last2=Lemoine|first2=Claude|last3=Durand-Delvigne|first3=Annick|date=2011-11-01|title=Working in Cooperatives and Social Economy: Effects on Job Satisfaction and the Meaning of Work|url=http://journals.openedition.org/pistes/2635|journal=Perspectives Interdisciplinaires Sur le Travail et la Santé|language=en|issue=13–2|doi=10.4000/pistes.2635|issn=1481-9384|doi-access=free}}</ref> A 2019 meta-study indicates that “the impact [of democratic workplaces] on the happiness workers is generally positive”.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Happiness theory and worker cooperatives: A critique of the alignment thesis {{!}} Request PDF|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335405081|website=ResearchGate|language=en|access-date=2020-05-07}}</ref> A 1995 study from the United States indicates that “employees who embrace an increased influence and participation in workplace decisions also reported greater job satisfaction”.<ref>{{Cite news |first=Anthony |last=Murray |title=Co-operatives make for a happy place to work |url=https://www.thenews.coop/39464/topic/democracy/co-operatives-make-happy-place-work/ |work=[[Co-op News]] |date=20 March 2013}}</ref> A 2008 study found mixed results for "spillover" effects on workers, where working in a democratic workplace doesn't increase the odds of voting but slightly increases the odds of community engagement.<ref>{{Cite web |title=APA PsycNet |url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-09164-013 |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=psycnet.apa.org |language=en}}</ref> A 1986 study of plywood companies in the USA found that democratic workplaces tended to over-report accidents whilst conventional capitalist ones would under-report them. Contrary to theoretical expectations of democratic workplaces, they were not safer for workers than conventional capitalist workplaces.<ref name=":3" />
*Are work and leisure mutually exclusive spheres?
*Can individuals condemned to alienating "scientifically managed" work environments ever really function as free players in their "free" time?


== See also ==
Andrew argues that both the [[left-wing politics|political left]] and the [[right-wing politics|right]] accept the thesis of "leisure-as-compensation" and that most issues between unions and "management" are too narrowly framed. Andrew in particular believes that scientifically managed leisure is "the closing of an iron cage of technological rationality" on all human life. In other words, a [[technological escalation]] not just in the workplace but also imposed by the need to use communications, transport, and other technologies to get to work, learn, do the work itself, and justify the work afterwards. Such technologies as [[Microsoft PowerPoint|PowerPoint]], for instance, take time to learn and to use, and that time is taken away from either real work, or leisure.
{{cols}}
*[[Aristocracy of labour]]
*[[Cooperative]]
*[[Deliberative democracy]]
*[[Libertarian Socialism|Libertarian socialism]]
*[[Popular assembly]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Syndicalism]]
* [[The Lucas Plan]]
*[[Theory X and Theory Y]]
*[[Worker cooperative]]
*[[Workers' control]]
*[[Workers' self-management]]
{{colend}}


==References==
The growth of [[scientific management]] in the industrial work force, and the consequences of that growth for how workers spend their leisure time, according to Andrew, combine to create a false idea of workplace efficiency. His critique is similar to that used to justify [[throughput accounting]]: overfocus on human labour is counter-productive since more and more minute divisions of labour deny workers' intelligence and creativity at work, destroys their ability to enjoy their time away from work, and puts them always at risk of losing opportunities simply for experimenting, thinking or dreaming on the job. An undemocratic workplace cannot be substituted by "more, and more enjoyable, leisure" if "boring and denigrating work" that alienates the individual - a key concern of Marx's [[sociology]] - remains the daily norm.
{{Reflist}}


==External links==
He counters pseudo-"conservative claims by efficiency experts that productivity is greatest when individual initiative is minimized" which is exactly the opposite of the ideal preached for [[entrepreneurship]].
*[http://economicdemocracy.org/workplacedemocracy.html Quotes and other writings on workplace democracy] ([[Noam Chomsky|Chomsky]], Wheatley, et al.)
*[http://www.ellerman.org/Davids-Stuff/The-Firm/Firm%20T&P.htm#ESOP-Priv Articles] by [[David Ellerman]] on workplace democracy
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCIjSsrrtAA Workplace Democracy and Democratic Ownership]—[[Richard D. Wolff|Richard Wolff]] & [[Gar Alperovitz]] at Left Forum, 2013.


{{Co-operatives|types}}
He presents his own model, '''worker self-management''', which he claims "would give all workers the same ability to create their jobs and to mingle leisure and work", as a radical alternative to both scientific management and technocratic socialism. His economic and organizational framework he intends to provide a unity of meaningful work and leisure.
{{Workplace}}
{{Socialism}}


[[Category:Organizational behavior]]
His model parallels that of [[Amartya Sen]] who argued in his 1999 [[Development as Freedom]] that the goal of all [[sustainable development]] must be the freeing of human time. But while Sen addresses the interface between the workplace and leisure-place, Andrew addresses freedom within the workplace.
[[Category:Anti-capitalism]]

[[Category:Socialism]]
Many of Andrew's ideas were echoed by companies during the [[dotcom boom]] during which many experiments in combining work and leisure were launched, but mostly applied only to higher level creative workers such as [[software developer]]s, not to people doing more routine work.
[[Category:Workplace]]

[[Category:Democracy]]
== Advantages and disadvantages ==
[[Category:Cooperatives]]

[[Category:Types of democracy]]
Workplace democracy is too complex to offer more than a general overview of its advantages and its
[[Category:Democratic socialism]]
disadvantages. Two obvious differences are that [[Lockout (industry)|lockout]]s can't happen without
the support of the majority of the workers, and [[Strike action|strike]]s will not be motivated by lack of control
over who manages.

[[Centralization]] and [[change management]] take place only by request: work teams and units must
retain at least the power to resist changes and centralization of work functions they have performed.
Presumably, though, any [[private sector]] work team recognizes legitimate arguments to centralize or
change.

=== Individual [[career development]] ===

[[Employee development]], [[job enrichment]], [[job rotation]] can be arranged [[ad hoc]] by the
work team itself to suit its own schedule. [[Job sharing]] is also possible and desirable if a
worker wants time off and another is in a position to do [[overtime]], without the concern that
this will set a [[precedent]] for management abuses or job losses.

[[Succession planning]] is everyone's problem: [[senior management]] will be replaced by whoever
is elected to replace them. [[Mentoring]] specific people to do those jobs may be more risky, as
[[management development]] is uncertain: a [[management effectiveness|highly effective manager]]
who is disliked can simply fail to achieve the position that they have been groomed for. This is
also true in [[representative democracy]], where "groomed" leaders can fail to win an election or
lose their party's support. But in organizations there is less talent ultimately to choose from,
and losing people is more serious, especially if [[leadership development]] is more certain elsewhere.

=== Organizational structure and management ===

[[Office politics]] in such an environment can be extreme: people might devote a lot of time
to keeping their colleagues satisfied and supporting them socially and politically, and there
is less surety of success. [[Performance appraisal]]s in particular is extremely sensitive,
as it's conducted by peers. [[Meeting]]s and [[meeting system]]s must generally be extremely
efficient, and require strong models of chairmanship and sophisticated models of how to handle
consent and [[dissent]]. [[Open-space meeting]]s and [[wiki]] methods to define their agendas
have been used by some organizations, notably [[political party]] and [[management consultant]]
organizations. One example is the [[Living Agenda]] pioneered by Canadian political parties.

[[Organizational commitment]] cannot be promised without extreme consultation. This may be an edge,
in some industries, but it certainly takes longer. [[Organizational development]], [[organizational performance|metrics for same]], changes in the
[[organizational structure|structure]] also take longer to negotiate. [[Organizational culture]] should
however be generally more accepting of [[organizational learning]] and [[peer review]] of [[organizational performance|performance]].

[[Performance improvement]], [[self-assessment]] and coping with one's own [[resistance to change]] is
easier if the rate of change or depth of assessment is negotiated with one's peers who must deal with
the same changes and challenges. However, this is not to say those skills always apply in management:
[[Peter principle]] applies if anything faster: people who are perceived as effective are elected to
run things, which they promptly fail at. However, there is much more acceptance of returning to the
shop floor as a worker if someone fails at management, which is much more difficult in organizations
where there is a culture gap between managers and workers. [[Process improvement]] is often thought
to be facilitated by such swaps, e.g. the [[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC]] television show ''Venture'' runs a regular series
called [[Back to the Floor]], a corporate [[reality show]] where [[Chief Executive Officer]]s and a
low level employee change jobs for a week. [[Process management]] is usually reported as benefitting
from the direct attention of the CEO, and [[professional development]] of the lower level employee is
also facilitated, as they discover whether they feel fit to take leadership or not.

[[Servant leadership]] is inevitable: leaders who do not serve, are simply voted out of the job.

=== Teams, talent and careers ===

[[Talent identification and management]] take place at the same time, on the shop floor where it
is easy to assess competence. [[Team building]] and [[team management|management]] rely on the
same interpersonal relationships as did hiring. [[Termination of employment]] is also by the
same people. This is a simple, perhaps even [[tribe|tribal]], model of how human teams must work.
[[Work stoppage]]s are common but very short in such an environment, due mostly to interpersonal
problems that are soon worked out, because the team has the power to resolve the issue itself.

[[Unfair dismissal]] claims are impeded because any firing is due to losing the support of one's
fellow team members and the faith of the [[social network]] of one's peers on the [[shop floor]].
In any jurisdiction, this is a legitimate criteria for dismissal, that one is not able to retain
the faith of one's colleagues.

"The co's" ([[Co-determination]], [[co-operation]], [[coaching]], [[collaboration]] and [[collective bargaining]])
may be easier in environments where [[consensus decision-making|consensus]] or [[consensus-seeking decision-making]]
is already practiced for the most important decisions: who leads. [[Consensus democracy]] methods already exist to
make very large scale decisions in social organizations.

== Not always applicable ==

Organizations that are thought not to be able to apply workplace democracy as easily are those that already have management that is elected by [[one person, one vote]] methods, especially:
*a [[political party]] or a [[bureaucracy]] carrying out detailed orders of a political level, who must typically be quite loyal to it
*a [[co-operative]] where all workers are also owners
*[[Union shop]]s in general, but especially:
**[[Closed shop]]s in industries where specific unions are very entrenched, where such democracy would compete with [[trade union]]s already established, even if those unions are not very democratic - the argument being that only a more democratic union should be replacing a less democratic one, not some non-unionized approach
**See [[union democracy]] for an article regarding the actual practice of democracy in [[trade union]]s
*[[emergency response]] functions such as [[medicine]] where there is extreme need to retain responsibility for all decisions, and where rights to do certain things depends on [[credential]]s and interpersonal trust that can't be challenged very easily.

One counter-argument however is that these organizations also require more internal harmony to work, and
that harmony is better assessed at regular intervals by elections and reviews, than only under stresses:
A [[dictator]] is far more likely to lose control of an organization during a crisis than anyone elected.

==See also==
*[[Common ownership]]
*[[Guild socialism]]
*[[Workers' Control]]
*[[Responsible autonomy]]

=== External links ===
*[http://www.iww.org Industrial Workers of the World]
*[http://www.sp-usa.org/labor Labor Commission of the Socialist Party USA]

[[Category:Organizational_studies_and_human_resource_management]]

Latest revision as of 01:36, 20 December 2024

Part of the Politics series
Democracy
Types
Related topics
Region
icon Politics portal
Part of the Politics series on
Communitarianism
Ideas
Intellectuals
Related topics
Politics portal
Part of a series on
Progressivism
Movements
Ideas
Activists
Commentators
Intellectuals
Politicians
Literature
Organizations
Media
By region
Related
Part of a series on
Anarcho-syndicalism
Theory
Practice
People
Organizations
Related topics

Workplace democracy is the application of democracy in various forms to the workplace, such as voting systems, debates, democratic structuring, due process, adversarial process, and systems of appeal. It can be implemented in a variety of ways, depending on the size, culture, and other variables of an organization.[1][2]

Theory

[edit]

Economic argument

[edit]

From as early as the 1920s, scholars have been exploring the idea of increasing employee participation and involvement. They sought to learn whether including employees in organizational decision-making would lead to increased effectiveness and productivity within the organization. According to Lewin, individuals who are involved in decision-making also have increased openness to change.[3] Different participative techniques can have either a stronger impact on morale than productivity, while others have the reverse effect. Success of the employee-owned and operated Mondragon suggests economic benefits from workplace democracy.

Citizenship argument

[edit]

Workplace democracy may encourage public participation in a government's political process. Skills developed from democracy in the workplace can transfer to improved citizenship and result in a better functioning democracy.[4] Workers in a democratic environment may also develop a greater concern for the common good, which also transfers to fundamental citizenship.

Ethical justification

[edit]

Philosopher Robert Dahl claims that, "If democracy is justified in governing the state, it must also be justified in governing economic enterprises."[5] Some political scientists have questioned whether the state-firm analogy is the most appropriate way to justify workplace democratization.[6]

Employee power and representation

[edit]

Workers working for democratic leaders report positive results such as group member satisfaction, friendliness, group mindedness, 'we' statements, worker motivation, creativity, and dedication to decisions made within an organization.[7]

When workplace democracy is used the effect typically is raised employee potential, employee representation, higher autonomy, and equal power within an organization (Rolfsen, 2011).

Political association

[edit]

Workplace democracy theory closely follows political democracy, especially in larger workplaces. Democratic workplace organization is often associated with trade unions, anarchist, and socialist (especially libertarian socialist) movements. Most unions have democratic structures at least for selecting the leader, and sometimes these are seen as providing the only democratic aspects to the workplace. Not every workplace that lacks a union lacks democracy, and not every workplace that has a union necessarily has a democratic way to resolve disputes.[8]

Historically, some unions have been more committed to workplace democracy than others. The Industrial Workers of the World pioneered the archetypal workplace democracy model, the Wobbly Shop, in which recallable delegates were elected by workers, and other norms of grassroots democracy were applied. This is still used in some organizations, notably Semco and in the software industry.

Spanish anarchists, Mohandas Gandhi's Swadeshi movement, and farm and retail co-operative movements, all made contributions to the theory and practice of workplace democracy and often carried that into the political arena as a "more participatory democracy." The Green parties worldwide have adopted workplace democracy as a central platform, and also often mimic workplace democracy norms such as gender equity, co-leadership, deliberative democracy applied to any major decision, and leaders who don't do policy. The democratic socialist parties have supported the notion of workplace democracy and democratically controlled institutions.

The best known and most studied example of a successfully democratic national labor union in the United States are the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,[citation needed] known throughout the labor movement as the UE. An independent trade Union, the UE was built from the bottom-up, and takes pride in its motto that "The Members Run This Union!"[8]

The Menshevik led Democratic Republic of Georgia experimented with workplace democracy by promoting cooperatives in the economy. These cooperatives were ended when Georgia was annexed into the Soviet Union.[9][10]

In Sweden, the Swedish Social Democratic Party made laws and reforms from 1950-70 to establish more democratic workplaces.[11]

Salvador Allende championed a large number of such experiments in Chile when he became president of Chile in 1970.[12]

Current approaches

[edit]

Limits on management

[edit]

Many[quantify] organizations began to realize by the 1960s that tight control by too few people was encouraging groupthink, increasing turnover in staff and a loss of morale among qualified people helpless to appeal what they saw as misguided, uninformed, or poorly thought-out decisions. Often[quantify] employees who publicly criticize such poor decision making of their higher management are penalized or even fired from their jobs on some pretext or other. The comic strip Dilbert has become popular satirizing this type of oblivious management, iconically represented by the Pointy-haired Boss, a nameless and clueless social climber. The Dilbert principle has been accepted as fact by some.[by whom?]

Much management philosophy has focused on trying to limit manager power, differentiate leadership versus management, and so on. Henry Mintzberg, Peter Drucker and Donella Meadows were three very notable theorists addressing these concerns in the 1980s. Mintzberg and Drucker studied how executives spent their time, Meadows how change and leverage to resist it existed at all levels in all kinds of organizations.

Adhocracy, functional leadership models and reengineering were all attempts to detect and remove administrative incompetence. Business process and quality management methods in general remove managerial flexibility that is often perceived as masking managerial mistakes, but also preventing transparency and facilitating fraud, as in the case of Enron. Had managers been more accountable to employees, it is argued,[by whom?] owners and employees would not have been defrauded.

Equity model

[edit]

In the equity model, employees own voting shares of their company, most commonly through an employee stock ownership plan. The equity model of workplace democracy exists when bottom-up practices, such as participatory management, are combined with the top-down influence provided by their voting rights.[13]

Codetermination

[edit]
Main article: Codetermination in Germany

German law specifically mandates democratic worker participation in the oversight of workplaces with 2000 or more employees. Similar laws exist in Denmark for businesses with more than 20 workers and France for businesses with more than 5000 workers.

Staff and Worker Representative Congresses

[edit]

In China, a form of workplace democracy is mandated by law for state-owned enterprises[14] and permitted in non-state-owned collectives and companies. This is done through Staff and Worker Representative Congresses (SWRCs), composed of workers directly elected by all workers in the workplace to represent them. As of the 1980s and 1990s, SWRCs were, in theory, broadly similar to continental European and Japanese workers' workplace councils in terms of rights and powers and consensus building, as opposed to the Anglo-American model "adversarial model" relating management and workers. Findings from interviews in 1997 suggested that in practice, SWRCs did have some real power, including some cases of dismissing managers.[15]

Examples of companies organized by workplace democracy

[edit]

Mondragon

[edit]

Mondragon Cooperative Corporation is a large worker cooperative based in Spain, legally considered to be corporation. The Marxian economist Richard D. Wolff describes it as "a stunningly successful alternative to the capitalist organization of production".[16]

Marland Mold

[edit]

Marland Mold was a company started in 1946 in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, by Severino Marchetto and Paul Ferland. The company at first, designed and built steel molds for plastic products throughout the 1950s and 60s. In 1969 the owners sold the company to VCA which was later bought by The Ethyl Corporation. The Marland Mold employees voted to join the International Union of Electrical Workers, because of a dispute that took place over health insurance. The plant's manager started to pay less attention and put less time into the Pittsfield plant so the profits declined. The plant was put up for sale in 1992. The employees ended up buying out the plant, even though they weren't fans of employee ownership before, they needed to save their jobs. There immediately was a burst in production and they were able to produce molds that normally took the 3,000 hours to make in 2,200 hours. They had financial stake in the company now which gave them new motivation for the company's success. The other two ideas that were key components to their success was the education of all members about their new roles, and building an ownership culture within the organization. In 1995, they had officially bought all ownership stock and buyout lenders and the company was completely employee owned. Through all of this employees were also able to gain a broader perspective on the company, like being able to understand others views of different conflicts in the workplace. In 2007, Marland Mold celebrated their 15th anniversary of employee ownership.[2]

In 2010, Marland Mold were acquired by Curtil.[17] In 2017, the Pittsfield plant was shut.[18]

Semco

[edit]

In the 1980s, Brazilian businessman Ricardo Semler, converted his family firm, a light manufacturing concern called Semco, and transformed it into a strictly democratic establishment where managers were interviewed and then elected by workers. All managerial decisions were subject to democratic review, debate and vote, with the full participation of all workers. This radical approach to management got him and the company a great deal of attention. Semler argued that handing the company over to the workers was the only way to free time for himself to go build up the customer, government and other relationships required to make the company grow. By giving up the fight to hold any control of internals, Semler was able to focus on marketing, positioning, and offer his advice (as a paid, elected spokesman, though his position as major shareholder was not so negotiable) as if he were, effectively, an outside management consultant hired by the company. Decentralization of management functions, he claimed, gave him a combination of insider information and outsider credibility, plus the legitimacy of truly speaking for his workers in the same sense as an elected political leader.[19]

Other companies

[edit]

Research on workplace democracy

[edit]

Public opinion

[edit]

A 2023 study in the United States found that the people surveyed generally support workplace democracy, even in survey experiments where respondents are exposed to question framings that emphasize the costs of workplace democracy.[20]

Management science studies

[edit]

There are many management science papers on the application of democratic structuring to the workplace, and its benefits.

Benefits are often contrasted to simple command hierarchy arrangements in which "the boss" can hire anyone and fire anyone, and takes absolute and total responsibility for their own well-being and also all that occurs "under" them. The command hierarchy is a preferred management style followed in many companies for its simplicity, speed and low process overheads.

London Business School chief, Nigel Nicholson, in his 1998 Harvard Business Review paper: "How Hardwired is Human Behavior?" suggested that human nature was just as likely to cause problems in the workplace as in larger social and political settings, and that similar methods were required to deal with stressful situations and difficult problems. He held up the workplace democracy model advanced by Ricardo Semler as the "only" one that actually took cognizance of human foibles.[21]

Effects on productivity

[edit]

A meta-analysis of 43 studies on worker participation found there was no negative correlation between workplace democracy and higher efficiency and productivity.[22] A report looking at research on democratic workplaces in the USA, Europe and Latin America found workplace democracy had staff working 'better and smarter' with production organized more efficiently. They were also able to organize more efficiently on a larger scale and in more capital-intensive industries than hierarchical workplaces.[23] A 1987 study of democratic workplaces in Italy, the UK and France found that workplace democracy has a positive relationship with productivity and that democratic firms do not get less productive as they get larger.[24] A report on democratic workplaces in the USA found that they can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses and have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation.[25] A 1995 study of workplace democracy in the timber industry in the Northwest United States found that productivity increased by 6 to 14% with workplace democracy.[26] A 2006 meta-study on workplace democracy found that it can 'equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership' and 'enrich local social capital.'[27] Another 2006 study reviewing existing evidence found that contrary to the popular idea that worker participation would decrease productivity, it actually increases it.[28] A 1985 study in France that the typical increase to productivity from workplace democracy was about 5%.[29] Another 2022 study using data from France found workplace democracy increases economic performance in knowledge-heavy sectors.[30]

However, a 1986 study of plywood companies in the USA found democratic workplaces lost productivity due to them hiring more workers who were not given equal democratic rights compared to original workers.[31] Another study looking at evidence of construction companies in the 1980s indicated that democratic workplaces had equal or lower productivity compared to other workplaces.[32]

Effects on business longevity

[edit]

According to an analysis, businesses with democratic workplaces in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec in the 2000s were almost half as likely as businesses with hierarchical workplaces to fail in ten years.[33] According to an analysis of all businesses in Uruguay between 1997 - 2009, businesses with democratic workplaces have a 29% smaller chance of closure than other firms.[34] In Italy, businesses with democratic workplaces that have been created by workers buying a business when it's facing a closure or put up to sale have a 3 year survival rate of 87%, compared to 48% of all Italian businesses.[35] In 2005, 1% of German businesses failed but the statistic for businesses with democratic workplaces was less than 0.1%.[33] A 2012 study of Spanish and French businesses with democratic workplaces found that they “have been more resilient than conventional enterprises during the economic crisis."[33] In France, the three year survival rate of businesses with democratic workplaces is 80%-90%, compared to the 66% overall survival rate for all businesses.[36] During the 2008 economic crisis, the number of workers in businesses with democratic workplaces in France increased by 4.2%, while employment in other businesses decreased by 0.7%.[37]

Effects on workers

[edit]

A 2018 study from South Korea found that workers had higher motivation in democratic workplaces.[38] A 2014 study from Italy found that democratic workplaces were the only kind of workplace which increased trust between workers.[39] A 2013 study from the United States found that democratic workplaces in the healthcare industry had significantly higher levels of job satisfaction.[40] A 2011 study in France found that democratic workplaces “had a positive effect on workers’ job satisfaction.”[41] A 2019 meta-study indicates that “the impact [of democratic workplaces] on the happiness workers is generally positive”.[42] A 1995 study from the United States indicates that “employees who embrace an increased influence and participation in workplace decisions also reported greater job satisfaction”.[43] A 2008 study found mixed results for "spillover" effects on workers, where working in a democratic workplace doesn't increase the odds of voting but slightly increases the odds of community engagement.[44] A 1986 study of plywood companies in the USA found that democratic workplaces tended to over-report accidents whilst conventional capitalist ones would under-report them. Contrary to theoretical expectations of democratic workplaces, they were not safer for workers than conventional capitalist workplaces.[31]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Rayasam, Renuka (24 April 2008). "Why Workplace Democracy Can Be Good Business". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2021-06-24.
  2. ^ a b "The Case of Marland Mold". Center for Learning in Action. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  3. ^ Lewin, Arie Y.; Stephens, Carroll U. (1994). "CEO Attitudes as Determinants of Organization Design: An Integrated Model". Organization Studies. 15 (2): 183–212. doi:10.1177/017084069401500202. S2CID 144237046.
  4. ^ Bachrach, P. (1967). The theory of democratic elitism: a critique. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0-316-07485-8.
  5. ^ Zirakzabeh, Cyrus Ernesto (1990). "Theorizing about Workplace Democracy Robert Dahl and the Cooperatives of Mondragón". Journal of Theoretical Politics. 2: 109–126. doi:10.1177/0951692890002001005. S2CID 145142694.
  6. ^ Frega, Roberto (2020-06-01). "Against Analogy". Democratic Theory. 7 (1): 1–26. doi:10.3167/dt.2020.070102. ISSN 2332-8894. S2CID 235862817. but contrast Vrousalis, Nicholas (2019-10-01). "Workplace Democracy Entails Economic Democracy". Journal of Social Philosophy. 50 (1): 526–42. doi:10.1111/josp.12275. hdl:1887/86062. S2CID 150787360.
  7. ^ Northouse, P. G. (2015). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice (3rd ed). Kalamazoo, MI: SAGE Publications. 978-1-4833-1276-7
  8. ^ a b G. William Domhoff. "Who Rules America: The Rise and Fall of Labor Unions in the U.S". Whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  9. ^ "The Forgotten Democratic Socialist Republic of Georgia".
  10. ^ "ACADEMIC: Politics & International Relations: Books: Bloomsbury Publishing (UK)".
  11. ^ The Origins and Myths of the Swedish Model of Workplace Democracy (PDF)
  12. ^ Onis, Juan de (1970-09-06). "Allende, Chilean Marxist, Wins Vote for Presidency". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-03-07.
  13. ^ "What is Workplace Democracy?".
  14. ^ "Law on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole People -".
  15. ^ Xiaoyang, Zhu; Chan, Anita (2005). "Staff and Workers' Representative Congress" (PDF). Chinese Sociology and Anthropology. 37: 6–33. doi:10.1080/21620555.2005.11038349. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-06-13.
  16. ^ Richard D. Wolff (24 June 2012). "Yes, there is an alternative to capitalism: Mondragon shows the way". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Wikidata Q127831350. Archived from the original on 25 July 2024.
  17. ^ "Marland Mold, Inc,: Private Company Information". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 30 March 2019.
  18. ^ "French firm to close Curtil Marland Mold in Pittsfield; 40 positions lost". 16 February 2017. Retrieved 30 March 2019.
  19. ^ "Ricardo Semler: The radical boss who proved that workplace democracy works | Mallen Baker's Respectful Business Blog". Mallenbaker.net. 2017-01-03. Retrieved 2018-09-16.
  20. ^ Mazumder, Soumyajit; Yan, Alan N. (2023). "What Do Americans Want from (Private) Government? Experimental Evidence Demonstrates that Americans Want Workplace Democracy". American Political Science Review. 118 (2): 1020–1036. doi:10.1017/S0003055423000667. ISSN 0003-0554.
  21. ^ Nicholson, Nigel (July 1998). "How Hardwired is Human Behavior?". Harvard Business Review. 76 (4): 134–147. PMID 10181587.
  22. ^ Doucouliagos, Chris (October 1995). "Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis" (PDF). Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 49: 58–77. doi:10.1177/001979399504900104. S2CID 58906938 – via United Diversity.
  23. ^ Pérotin, Virginie. "What do we really know about worker co-operatives?" (PDF). Retrieved 2023-09-22.
  24. ^ Estrin, Saul; Jones, Derek C; Svejnar, Jan (1987-03-01). "The productivity effects of worker participation: Producer cooperatives in western economies". Journal of Comparative Economics. 11 (1): 40–61. doi:10.1016/0147-5967(87)90040-0. ISSN 0147-5967.
  25. ^ Abell, Hilary (June 2014). "WORKER COOPERATIVES: PATHWAYS TO SCALE" (PDF). The Democracy Collaborative. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-02-28. Retrieved 2020-05-07.
  26. ^ "Participation and Productivity: A Comparison of Worker Cooperatives and Conventional Firms in the Plywood Industry" (PDF). Brookings Papers: Microeconomics 1995.
  27. ^ Logue, John; Yates, Jacquelyn S. (2006-11-01). "Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization". Economic and Industrial Democracy. 27 (4): 686–690. doi:10.1177/0143831X06069019. ISSN 0143-831X. S2CID 153938396.
  28. ^ Levin, Henry M. (2006-03-01). "Worker Democracy and Worker Productivity". Social Justice Research. 19 (1): 109–121. doi:10.1007/s11211-006-0002-z. ISSN 1573-6725. S2CID 19971458.
  29. ^ Defourney, Jacques; Estrin, Saul; Jones, Derek C. (1985-06-01). "The effects of workers' participation on enterprise performance: Empirical evidence from French cooperatives". International Journal of Industrial Organization. 3 (2): 197–217. doi:10.1016/0167-7187(85)90004-9. ISSN 0167-7187.
  30. ^ Young-Hyman, Trevor; Magne, Nathalie; Kruse, Douglas (July 2023). "A Real Utopia Under What Conditions? The Economic and Social Benefits of Workplace Democracy in Knowledge-Intensive Industries". Organization Science. 34 (4): 1353–1382. doi:10.1287/orsc.2022.1622. ISSN 1047-7039.
  31. ^ a b Grunberg, Leon (1986-01-01). "Safety, Productivity and the Social Relations in Production: An Empirical Study of Worker Cooperatives". International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 6 (4): 87–102. doi:10.1108/eb013025. ISSN 0144-333X.
  32. ^ Jones, Derek C. (2007-01-01), Novkovic, Sonja; Sena, Vania (eds.), "The Productive Efficiency of Italian Producer Cooperatives: Evidence from Conventional and Cooperative Firms", Cooperative Firms in Global Markets, Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory & Labor-Managed Firms, vol. 10, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 3–28, doi:10.1016/S0885-3339(06)10001-0, ISBN 978-0-7623-1389-1, retrieved 2024-02-25
  33. ^ a b c "Worker Cooperatives Performance and Success Factors". Co-opLaw.org. 22 October 2014. Retrieved 2020-05-15.
  34. ^ Burdín, Gabriel (January 2014). "Are Worker-Managed Firms More Likely to Fail Than Conventional Enterprises? Evidence from Uruguay". ILR Review. 67 (1): 202–238. doi:10.1177/001979391406700108. ISSN 0019-7939. S2CID 154970350.
  35. ^ "The path to worker buyouts: Does the UK need its own 'Marcora Law'?". Co-op News. 7 September 2015.
  36. ^ Olsen, E.K. (2013-01-01). "The relative survival of worker cooperatives and barriers to their creation". Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms. 14: 83–107. doi:10.1108/S0885-3339(2013)0000014005. ISBN 978-1-78190-750-4.
  37. ^ "The resilience of the cooperative model". Issuu. 14 December 2014. Retrieved 2020-05-15.
  38. ^ Park, Rhokeun (2018-01-29). "Responses to job demands: moderating role of worker cooperatives". Employee Relations. 40 (2): 346–361. doi:10.1108/ER-06-2017-0137.
  39. ^ Sabatini, Fabio; Modena, Francesca; Tortia, Ermanno (2014). "Do cooperative enterprises create social trust?". Small Business Economics. 42 (3): 621–641. doi:10.1007/s11187-013-9494-8. hdl:10419/142639. S2CID 16528387.
  40. ^ Berry, D.P. (2013-01-01). "Effects of cooperative membership and participation in decision making on job satisfaction of home health aides". Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms. 14: 3–25. doi:10.1108/S0885-3339(2013)0000014002. ISBN 978-1-78190-750-4.
  41. ^ Castel, Davy; Lemoine, Claude; Durand-Delvigne, Annick (2011-11-01). "Working in Cooperatives and Social Economy: Effects on Job Satisfaction and the Meaning of Work". Perspectives Interdisciplinaires Sur le Travail et la Santé (13–2). doi:10.4000/pistes.2635. ISSN 1481-9384.
  42. ^ "Happiness theory and worker cooperatives: A critique of the alignment thesis | Request PDF". ResearchGate. Retrieved 2020-05-07.
  43. ^ Murray, Anthony (20 March 2013). "Co-operatives make for a happy place to work". Co-op News.
  44. ^ "APA PsycNet". psycnet.apa.org. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Workplace_democracy&oldid=1264031933"