Should workers have more democracy in the workplace?

[the voice]

It is not uncommon for US businesses to follow an authoritarian , command chain model of power distribution and decision making. Some voices argue that this increases efficiency and productivity. Some other voices argue that this is in discrepancy with the overall values of the country (which are democratic) and that it limits the freedom of those who work.

What do you think? Are people free at work? Should they have more freedom? Should they not?
Do you perceive the chain command model as a short term privation of freedom of any sorts?
Longlive and others,

Asking questions is at the very base of our culture. And asking questions is the basis of progress and innovation. Just because something is status quo of your culture it doesn't mean you shouldn't be free to speak about it. That is , in the end, what makes us valuable as a civilization.
JB,

I agree, that is a well thought point of view.
Longlive,

No, actually, it would. Just because you wouldn't ask it it doesn't mean nobody else would.
Natasha,

Yes , that is a very good suggestion. My question indeed doesn't have anything to do with past political regimes, but it was meant to invite to free and constructive sociological and philosophical discussion.
I only asked the question, I didn't really answer it, so I never said that I am for or against it.

So, if it will be better understood this way, I should reformulate: do people feel that subordinate employees should have a bigger voice in the workplace? Would this be fair to owners of businesses? To workers themselves?
Phoenix ,

I don't know why you keep mentioning Marxism. Again, my question pertains more to the field of management science, or to industrial and organizational psychology , rather than to politics and the government. My primary focus was however philosophical and sociological. At any rate, I never implied any political agenda of any groups of interest that exist or existed out there.

And workplace democracy is not a marxist doctrine that should be made illegal like you say!! Respected researchers into management methodology have written on different aspects of enhancing worker freedom and satisfaction in the workplace, usually with the purpose of more productivity. In fact, a number of companies apply such principles with their employees already , and they are the product of capitalism, not of communism! (!)!

Why can't people just talk openly about something without resorting to close minded stereotypes? AND without getting informed (at all?!) ?
Natasha,

Thank you, this is a great answer! I see where you are coming from, and I share some of your views. When put in the position of the leader, I try to maintain the leader-servant position (as much as is realistic) , and I guess I do mix it with a paternalistic approach. But I have always also mixed it with a democratic approach, in that I have tried to put as many things to vote as realistically possible , and I strived to give people the feeling that what is happening is the application of their contributions. But I guess this depends a lot on your context and the people you manage. If it is initiative driven people , a democratic style works. If not, then you are right , a more authoritarian style is needed. At any rate, you brought some great insight, I've learned a lot!
p.s.: I think the best way to put my vision of democratic organization is that it can still be done with strong leadership. The two would not have to be mutually exclusive.

[thegreatone]

No.

[Pearl L]

i know what you mean, sometimes i feel like my job is my prison till i go home, i have to do everything the warden says or i'll get in trouble but at least i have nice managers

[dm]

They can have their full say when they own the company.

Until then, they can suggest, ask, participate but the owners set the tone and the regulations within the government they live.

Chain of command model keeps communication flowing and decision making at the level it needs to be at.

[Klondike]

Not appropriate in corporate. In business, efficiency is king. White-collar workers in particular are highly paid for their efficiency.
The other way to think of it, is that all employees are a part of a group that needs to run well for everyone's benefit. Everyone has some stake in the company (reason why employees get stock-options), and it is in everyone's interest for the company to do well.

[CoolLuke]

I think it would be cool if workers had a democratically elected team leader. If those team leaders were not adequate then they would lose in the next elections.

[JB]

At any job I"ve ever had there's always been a chain of command. It's primary function is so that there is structure and organization. It's a good and necessary concept in and of itself. To say that the concept itself is too restrictive is wrong. It's the way it is delegated and executed that matters.

[longliveabcdefg]

Should you start your own business one day, you would not be asking this question. Think about the military, absolute command chain is necessary.

Additional
I did not say you should not ask such a question. I said should you be on the other side of the echelon, this question would not come to your mind, so you WOULD NOT be asking.

[longliveabcdefg]

We are free at work because we aren't forced to work anywhere in particular. I have had many jobs and it seems those that work and care about the product, themselves, other employees, the customer are marginalized by those who don't care about the product, don't care about themselves, other employees or the customer. While there does need to be a chain of command, if it were more understood that what is good for the employee is good for the employer we wouldn't see the type of gross ineptitude that leads to this idea that people aren't worth enough to live off of for 8 hours a day.

What is good for the company is good for the employee...what is good for the employer is good for the employee...what is good for the employee is good for the customer...what is good for the employee is good for the employer; everyone just gets confused when "good" becomes a tool for some particular part of the equation to claim more intrinsic right to value. The employees shouldn't make as much as the manager, but the manager/owner (if they want to continue to be an employer) shouldn't be buying boats when the employees can't pay regular bills with a 40 hour a week job. We undervalue and degrade those at the bottom of the pile and wonder why we can't get anything done right. It's honestly the most vivid example of insanity that I can see in our modern markets.

I definitely understand what you are saying....I think. Let me know if I was off. You will get animosity if you speak of this in terms people already have mapped out in their heads. Try to break free of the terms that pit communism and capitalism or political ideologies against each other and you might get more free dialogue on the issue...it's my holy grail lol.

So far the best way I have of describing this is by asking, "Are your employees your customers? Are you customers your employees?" Something along those lines so that it illustrates how these divisions are in reality blurred and interdependent.

Edit: I finally got some time to study this a little more. I've been reading into managment styles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_styles

I suppose I'm a supporter of the paternalistic managment style defined there.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...024AAUmLD3

This is a similar question I starred a few days ago...it is basically the next evolution of my defining the actual managment process. I know it sounds funny but I ran a big raiding guild on WoW and when I created the culture and environment I did it with one goal...to test Ayn Rand's theory that men flourish under social circumstances devoid of the initiation of coercion. Through example I taught that we all needed each other and there was an economy based on rewards from the successful completion of raids that required as many as 25 people to complete. The paternatlistic comes closest to how I set up the "social laws" that dictated behavior to the group. There does seem to be a huge problem with people becoming dependent upon the leader as is stated in the Wiki link. I also ran across that issue. I was unable to break through the necessity of my own presence to mediate. Those who could, chose not to and those that couldn't...well...they often did try to mediate with a series of irrational steps that would always lead to breakdown of the unit.

I did most of it intuitively and this is allowing me to really start to dig and define my process..thank you for asking this question. It's been really interesting. I also understand now why you used the democratic terminology. The democratic style in my experience doesn't work because there are very few leaders that exist in nature and the coordination of the unit requires strong leadership.

In my personal experience with pulling back leadership and allowing a democratic approach I have always seen a breakdown of the system (not in anyone's self interest) due to a "shutting down"....people just shut down if they are given responsibility they don't know how to handle. It's strong leadership who fascilitates an environment devoid of the intiation of coercion. It's the subtle balance that both intellectually and actually realizes the value of each piece of the puzzle and allows for the mutual benefit of all.

Stephen H, who is on my contacts list can explain a lot of this subtly very well. I think it's been his influence that has gotten most of this out of intuitve knowledge for me, and into rational expression.

[Phoenix Quill]

Bluntly put we are in a recession because not enough people know the answer to your question is "Oh HELL NO!"

"Some other voices argue that this is in discrepancy with the overall values of the country (which are democratic) and that it limits the freedom of those who work".

These are the voices of Idiot Control Freak Marxists & we should really beat them down at every opportunity. America should have ZERO tolerance for this crap.

Democracy isn't freedom; it's a vote in what freedoms you wish to restrict in others.
It's better than not having a vote, but hardly the same as liberty - which is the actual 'value' of America.

Work is giving up freedom to perform a task that someone else is willing to pay you for.

Which brings us to money, which IS freedom. I.e. the ability to act on your desires.

So should workers have the ability to act on their desires?
Should workers have more freedom?

Well there is the contradiction.

MOST of us work to be paid by others.
Which means it is THEIR desire we work for.
Which means in general that WORK can be defined as a period of NON-FREEDOM...
endured to procure the freedom of money.

So asking the Government to step in and give workers more 'freedom' is quite literally asking the Government to make sure there is less work.

And this is what the phrase 'more democracy in the workplace' actually means.

It's Marxists empowering workers out of a job.