Firms as coalitions of democratic cultures: towards an organizational theory of workplace democracy (original) (raw)
Related papers
In Defense of Workplace Democracy: Toward a Justification of the Firm/State Analogy
In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis an important conceptual battleground for democratic theorists ought to be, it would seem, the capitalist firm. We are now painfully aware that the typical model of government in so-called “investor-owned” companies remains profoundly oligarchic, hierarchical, and unequal. Renewing with the literature of the 70s and 80s on workplace democracy, a few political theorists have started to advocate anew democratic reforms of the workplace by relying on an analogy between firm and state. To the extent that a firm is an organization comparable to the state, it too ought to be ruled along democratic lines. Our paper tests the robustness of the analogy between firm and state by considering six major objections to it: (1) the objection from a difference in ends, (2) the objection from shareholders’ property rights, (3) the objection from worker’s consent, (4) the objection from workers’ exit opportunities, (5) the objection from workers’ (lack of) expertise, and (6) the objection from the fragility of firms. We find all of these objections wanting. While the paper does not ambition to settle the issue of workplace democracy at once, our goal is to pave the way for a more in-depth study of the ways in which firms and states can be compared and the possible implications this may have for our understanding of the nature of managerial authority and the governance of firms.
Workplace Democracy From a Democratic Ideal to a Managerial Tool and Back
In different political theories, democracy is not reduced to state institutions, but includes the democratization of the whole society, its organizations and enterprises. This idea goes back to the beginnings of modern democratic theory and to Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract. It was adopted by different socialist thinkers, later on by trade unions and, in the 1960s and 70s, by political scientists such as Carole Pateman and other promoters of participatory democracy. According to this tradition, workplace democracy is considered to be necessary for the realization of democratic ideals like individual autonomy, freedom, voice and participation in all relevant questions influencing citizens' lives. Parts of this normative idea were realized by trade union movements and laws, especially in Western European countries. Nevertheless, workplace democracy in the sense of the above-mentioned theories remained far from becoming reality. In the 1990s, the idea was co-opted by organizational development and management studies and underwent a change: Workplace democracy, then mostly operationalized as limited participation, became a managerial tool that should help to increase employees' motivation and efficiency and thereby contribute to entrepreneurial success. In the last few years, however, the original democratic ideal of workplace democracy seems to have been revitalized under conditions of a worldwide economic crisis. This article shows the development and the latest revival of the concept of workplace democracy, and discusses its innovative potential for today's democratic societies.
Workplace Democracy-the recent debate
Philosophy Compass, 2019
The article reviews the recent debate about workplace democracy. It first presents and critically discusses arguments in favor of democratizing the firm that are based on the analogy with states, meaningful work, the avoidance of unjustified hierarchies, and beneficial effects on political democracy. The second part presents and critically discusses arguments against workplace democracy that are based on considerations of efficiency, the difficulties of a transition towards democratic firms, and liberal commitments such as the rights of employees and owners to work for or invest in non-democratic firms. The conclusion summarizes the debate and argues that experiments with democratic workplaces as what Erik Olin Wright (2010) calls "real utopias" could deliver new insights and thus move the discussion forward.
The True Strong Point of Democratic Firm Management
Modern Economy, 2018
According to the author, the benefits society would derive from the transfer of corporate decision powers to workers upon the establishment of a democratic firm system include both the disempowerment of capitalists and, most importantly, a powerful impetus in the direction of full democracy. Capitalism is a despotic system enabling capitalists to impose their laws not only on workers, but even on politics and culture has been gaining wide currency. Therefore, one major advantage of democratic firm management is the enforcement of the "one head, one vote" principle in lieu of the "one share, one vote" criterion.
The Problem of Workplace Democracy
New Labor Forum, 2017
The link between political and economic democracy was strong following the Civil War, in which one of the central questions was the compatibility of an economic system based on 745037N LFXXX10.
2019
Workplace democracy, which is attracting renewed political and philosophical interest, is often advocated on two intertwined views. The first is that the authority relation of employee to firm is akin to that of subject to state, such that reasons favoring democracy in the state likewise apply to the firm. The second is that, when democratic controls are absent in the workplace, employees are liable to objectionable forms of subordination by their bosses, who may then issue arbitrary directives on matters ranging from pay to the allocation of overtime and to relocation and promotion. Daniel Jacob and Christian Neuhäuser (2018) have recently submitted these views to careful criticism in this journal.1 Jacob and Neuhäuser (JN, for short) argue, on the one hand, that the parallel between firms and states is unwarranted. For, unlike managerial authority, state authority is final. The state grants firms their legal status and subjects their authority to its regulations, which citizens in democracies already control, such that they could render democracy in the workplace mandatory if they wish. They also argue, on the other hand, that suitable workplace regulation alongside meaningful exit options may suffice to prevent, with no need for democratization, objectionable forms of workplace subjection. Neither view offers, they resolve, compelling reasons to believe that justice requires that firms be democratic. I here inspect these criticisms in turn, and offer reasons for skepticism.
Constructing Workplace Democracy
Industrial Relations, 2011
PSA Organising centre: +00-64-(0)4-495 7633 C o n s t r u c t i n g W o r k p l a c e D e m o c r a c y P a g e | iii C o n s t r u c t i n g W o r k p l a c e D e m o c r a c y P a g e | vi