So Just What is a Democratic Workplace?
By Michelle Malay Carter on April 29, 2008
Competitive Elections and Majority Rule?
I’ve been pondering this for a while. I looked up the definition of democracy on wikipedia, and unfortunately, there is no three sentence definition. However, it states, that competitive elections is the most common thread. Additionally, majority rule is the next usual predominant feature.
(FYI – The USA is a representative democracy not a direct one, so it does not strictly follow majority rules – much to Al Gore’s chagrin.)
I Can’t Get on Board with Democratic Workplaces
I’m against democratic workplaces (within managerial hierarchies which excludes parnerships, associations, boards, churches) for these very reasons. Competitive elections is not even worth talking about. And, quite frankly, majority rule is a slippery slope into madness.
Collaborative and Democratic Are NOT Synonyms
I’ve noticed some people use the phrases “collaborative workplace” and “democratic workplace” as synonyms. In my mind, they are two entirely different issues.
I’m all for collaboration. I’m all for listening to all all pertinent parties. What I am in strict opposition to is majority rule. If we ever hope to have accountable workplaces, the person who is being ultimately held accountable for a task or project must also have the authority to decide at the choice points along with way (within the boundaries and resources set by his manager). All can input (collaborate). The accountable person decides.
John Caddell at Shop Talk – Innovation wrote a post on WorldBlu’s 2008 List of Democratic Workplaces. WorldBlu evaluations companies on ten factors:
1. Purpose and Vision
2. Transparency
3. Dialogue + Listening
4. Fairness + Dignity
5. Accountability
6. Individual + Collective
7. Choice
8. Integrity
9. Decentralization
10. Reflective + Evaluation
Maybe I’m On Board with Democratic Workplaces?
Interestingly, there is nothing about competitive elections nor majority rule here either. So maybe I’m for Democratic workplaces?? Without having studied WorldBlu’s definitions, I can back most of what’s on the list above.
We Need a Better Name for the Model
I think the term Democratic Workplace is a poor term. Am I wrong in thinking that most people associate democracy with competitive elections and majority rule? If so, let’s not muddy the waters by picking a misleading term for organizations that have neither. There has got to be something better. Any ideas?
Are you confused by this as well?
Photo Credit: FreeFoto.com
Filed Under Accountability, Corporate Values, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Strategy, Talent Management
Comments
11 Responses to “So Just What is a Democratic Workplace?”
Subscribe in a reader
Michelle – you draw a incredibly important line in your post… There is a big difference between a collaborative workplace and a democratic/majority run workplace.
The difference, as you state, is accountability.
A number of managers I’ve worked with feel the need to be totally dictatorial in their decisions discounting the opinions of others, or they feel they need to have everyone’s approval and agreement before making a decision. Both are harmful to an organization’s health.
The truth about democratically run organization’s is that not everyone’s opinion should hold equal weight, and on the contrary one individual rarely has the insight to make an effective decision on their own.
A problem I find with managers is that they have a difficult time finding the middle ground b/w autocracy and democracy. The middle ground is of course collaboration.
How do we get there? I for one don’t have all the answers, but I think the insistence on accountability has to be the foundation. Far too many managers avoid accountability by saying, “well… Jim and Nancy and Bill all thought it was a good idea.”
On the other side of the token autocratic organization’s lack buy in from team members who realize their opinions won’t matter anyways and accept failure by saying, “That was Bob’s decision, I had nothing to do with it.”
I think I am confused as well…
Chris
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the comment. I’m glad I’m not alone in my confusion.
Michelle
It’s important to recall that when most of us refer to democracy (as in “the United States is a democracy”) what we mean is “democratic republic”. The American Founding Fathers feared the tyrannies of the minority and majority, and created a system to balance out their potential powers.
I’ve always admired what happened at Glacier Metal Company under Wilfred Brown’s tenure as managing director. Glacier indeed had representational democracy in what Brown called the “legislative” powers held by the Works Councils which worked on issues of “policy”. Brown always thought that this wasn’t ceding power on management’s behalf because employees always had power to reject most change through such tactics as working to rule or a sick strike, available even to employees who cannot strike. Along with their appeals process (the judicial arm) and strengthened management (executive), Glacier probably closely resembled what people mean when they say “democratic workplace”.
It’s certainly a better idea than simply “collaborating” because it described the working relations in detail, and Brown was quite clear that where these things did not exist managers would tend to take on powers vis-a-vis their employees that they had no rights to.
With what Richard Florida calls the Creative Class, workers demanded more participation by voting with their feet: they simply find a workplace they like better. This creates an atmosphere where management openly acknowledges their power and attempts to create an environment that will entice them to stay, including ceding power to them on issues of policy. This would seem to validate what the socialist cum industrialist cum Lord Brown instituted at Glacier back in the 1940s.
It’s too bad that these solutions are not better known, especially in New Economy companies whose workforce is almost entirely Creative Class folks.
Hi Forrest,
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate your grasp of history on the subject.
Regards,
Michelle
I am not confused! Not at all!
But I suspect this is cultural as much as anything else.
I sat next to a British manager at a conference. His firm had just been bought out by a German firm and psychologists had winged in to explain some cultural differences.
Apparently Brits and Americans sit around “team building” for want of any other polite label. When you walk into a German meeting, you are expected to be armed with information relevant to the decisions to be made. You pool information, discuss alternatives, leave and act. And you are accountable for delivering what is agreed. You agreed it after all.
I have seen New Zealanders and South Africans at odds over a similar difference. The net effect is that South Africans appear bossy and New Zealanders appear unable to take responsibility.
What is differing is their belief in the purpose of a group decision. South Africans believe the decision is binding – so they want the decision fully discussed. NZers will go their own way whatever is discussed – so they shoot the breeze, the boss makes a declaration and they do what ever they wanted anyway. If you ask them after the meeting why they didn’t contribute, they will shrug their shoulders and say no one listens.
Mmm . . of the three groups, I have found Americans a happy medium – less likely to be grandiose and more likely to deliver – but there you are – you are regarded by some as happy bunnies who waste expensive work time chatting to no precise purpose!!!
Is American changing might be your question? Clay Shirky’s recent keynote address to Web2.0 might have a clue: Where is the mouse? Let me know what you think? Is he wrong? Right? Is there another interpretation?
Hi Jo,
Thanks for the comment and for the international perspective on this.
Michelle
Hi Michelle,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful blog post and for sharing WorldBlu with your audience.
I understand how confusing these ideas can be!
I’ve spent over a decade studying the idea of organizational democracy and it has helped me to understand that democracy is simply a way of organizing people to solve problems and get things done.
There are many ways to organize people – the common way in corporations is the militaristic or command and control approach.
But democracy gives power to the people to chart their own individual and collective courses.
Voting or consensus are just ways of making decisions, but they are not democracy in and of themselves.
That’s why we have identified the 10 principles that it takes to create a democratic SYSTEM. Thanks for mentioning them above. We need to understand democracy in a much bigger way.
Today I have an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor newspaper entitled, “Even big companies are embracing a democratic style.” I invite you to check it out if it interests you!
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0506/p09s02-coop.html?page=1
And feel free to explore more on the WorldBlu website about these ideas. Thanks so much Michelle for getting this very important dialogue rolling!
Warmly,
Traci Fenton
Founder, WorldBlu
Hi Traci,
Welcome. Thank you for your gracious comments.
I read your article in the Christian Science Monitor. Thanks for the link. I agree with what people are trying to accomplish in a move toward Democratic Workplaces.
Based on what I read in article, I would respectfully disagree with a few of the methods mentioned as a means for accomplishing the stated goals (for example, accountability), but I can get behind the values embedded within them.
Regards,
Michelle Malay Carter
An interesting post. Why not simply a “requisite” workplace? Many of these descriptors merely point to the alchemy and snake oil salesmanship that exists in defining managerial leadership. Interesting enough the fact that all of this salesmanship occurs is evidence that the workplaces that these alchemists target are dysfunctional, understand that, and are seeking change.
Precise language is important and workplaces are definitely not democratic institutions, collaborative perhaps, and at times prescriptive. Loose language promotes an opportunity for non-productive discussion that deals with the periphery. Let’s debate the functionality of the democratic institution we are working for as an example. The cultural conversations in these organizations get hung up on whether the company is democratic or is not, much of it just a waste of productive time.
This reminds me of a change intitative I was involved with in a previous company. When management were discussing a “communication strategy” for introducing the change my response was our communication strategy is not to communicate that we are implementing change. Management will implement it and if it is effective employees will note the changes as they occur and will respond positively. This was successful insofar as it was a break from the repetitive cycle of flavor of the month change process where management got up and eroded its own credibility indicating for the umpteenth time that the company was going to change and provided the employees an opportunity to mobilize their defenses to oppose the change being articulated or to tune in their skepticsm so that they could validate all of the reasons why there was no change visible.
What confuses me is why a descriptor is necessary. Why does the workplace need an adjective to describe it; a source for debate about whether it is or isn’t meeting the description provided? The German model of engagement referred to above sounds the most functional. The democratic (or for that matter collaborative) workplace debates have only served to obscure accountability.
Hi Al,
Thanks for stopping by. I can always count on you to tell it like it is.
We have to have a descriptor name, otherwise, what will the management consultant call it when he writes his book?
Regards,
Michelle
Hi,
Here is the last posting of the paper. Feel free to announce the posting to your friends, connections and network.
The link is:
http://workplacedemocracy.com/2009/08/18/the-democratic-workplace-research-paper/
With the dream of creating of a New Workplace Reality
Rune Kvist Olsen
The concept of ?The DemoCratic Workplace? is a way to rebuild corporate credibility, accountability and trust throughout the world. The appeal in communicating and forwarding these ideas can be seen as one of the ultimate reactions to the global shift in corporate and economic history of this tumultuous times inflicted with substantial changes and transformations on how our corporate systems in society are functioning.
As someone who is operating in corporate life just stated; ?There is a global shift going on requiring us to rethink the way we have designed our corporations and economic systems to work. We strongly believe we must instead expand our thinking around what may be the new models of organizational design and discover a more enlightened, sustainable and profitable design that embraces, rather than undermines humanity?.
The author Wanda Marie Pasz who is a specialist within the area of workplace democracy is stating: ?It’s the first time I’ve seen someone discuss the concept of a shared vision of how the workplace should operate and develop a practical method arriving at that shared vision. I think this is a very important document and a breakthrough of sorts on the road to workplace democracy. I’m also thinking that the timing couldn’t be better to start promoting these ideas. The global economic meltdown is going to leave a lot of enterprises – public and private – looking for new ways of doing things and so these seemingly radical ideas might just gain some traction. If enterprises are expected to be mindful of their impact on people and communities, then people and communities must play a part in deciding how those enterprises operate, what they do, how they do it… and all of this means that we will need ways of working together that no longer involve imposed decisions. The situation seems to cry out for workplace democracy – the real kind?.
The intention with the message of ?The Leadingship Approach? is to arise and mobilize New Standards of awareness and consciousness in establishing and implementing alternative options in designing our corporate organizations to work successfully and profitably. The main key is to create a New Social Order in working communities that recognizes and embraces the sovereignty and autonomy of each and every individual human being at work.
I hope for a valuable assistance in promoting the vision presented in the concept of ?The DemoCratic Workplace? by communicating and forwarding this message throughout relevant operations and networks.
In addition to the attached paper, I will also forward you the links to the websites where the paper is posted and mentioned. Here are the links:
http://www.worldblu.com/new-paper-published-on-workplace-democracy
http://www.uncharted.ca. There’s also a link in the discussion forum http://forums.uncharted.ca/viewtopic.php?t=1464.
The paper is also mentioned at http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/profiles/blogs/report-the-democratic.
Please enjoy the paper and give me a signal on this request.
All the best
Rune Kvist Olsen
Design and implementation of the Equal Dignity Organization