I’ve been wrestling with a growing disillusionment recently, one that has been gnawing away at my longstanding enthusiasm for reshaping and refining organisations. The culprit? A prevailing trend that advocates for every business to morph into a democratic entity. Yes, you read that right: I’m wondering if democracy in the workplace, is something to pursue as a universally good thing – I know how triggering this might be for some. As the great poet Kanye said, “Haters start your engines, I hear ’em gearin’ up”.
On the surface, it’s an appealing concept, isn’t it? Embracing equality, promoting everyone’s voice, and embodying the very emblem of fairness we so highly esteem in our societies. This is where the enticement ends and the misalignment with reality begins.
Why have I landed here you might ask? Seeing how our democracies are creating tribes of us and them, seemingly incapable of collaborating on anything, I fail to see how that would be an improvement on where we are today. It seems to me that we’re missing the important aspect of context and purpose.
Organisations are not political systems in the same sense that a nation state is. Now now, of course I know that organisations and organisational life can be highly political and survival is often based on how well you can play the game of politics rather than an idealistic meritocracy. Gareth Morgan’s metaphor of organisations as political instruments is an apt perspective here. And of course, there are some examples of companies where aspects of corporate democracy have worked. I am not disputing that. But is this really a viable option for most and is it something they need to strive for? I doubt it. Commercial organisations are complex structures of human interaction geared towards achieving very specific objectives; in a nutshell they are there to produce goods and/or services in some way or another – a very specific context – and a very different one to running a nation.
While both are systems of governance that involve the coordination of people, teams, departments, etc, their purposes, structures, and the nature of the relationships they involve are fundamentally different.
A nation-state exists to provide security, uphold laws, safeguard citizens’ rights, and facilitate societal welfare. It’s not about producing goods or services for profit, but rather about ensuring the wellbeing of its citizens. Moreover, citizens do not usually choose their nation-state; typically, one is born into it and is subjected to its laws by default, and they can’t opt out in the same way as they can leave an organisation.
Contrast this with a commercial organisation. These are purpose-built entities designed to deliver goods or services (for profit). They have a strategic focus aimed at generating value and growth (not making the argument here that growth is necessarily always good, but it’s still a driving force in our short-sighted mindset that dominates corporate decision making). Employees voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement with an organisation, exchanging their knowledge and labour for compensation. They also have the freedom to exit this agreement, under most circumstances, and seek employment elsewhere.
Trying to apply democratic principles universally across these vastly different contexts can lead to incongruity. Democracies (in theory) work in nation-states because they ensure that all citizens have a say in the laws and policies that affect them, a necessity for upholding justice and societal cohesion. However, businesses aren’t designed primarly to promote social equity or uphold civic rights; they’re designed to produce goods or services effectively and efficiently.
This isn’t to say employee participation and input shouldn’t be encouraged, but I wonder if instead a more balanced approach might be more effective. This would involve a mix of top-down decision-making, where people with the most knowledge and experience make certain calls, and bottom-up input, where employees have a say in decisions that directly affect their work and well-being.
An even simpler example of how governance systems need to be matched to context is your family. If we ran our family as a democracy my wife and I would be outvoted by our four children all the time. No set bedtimes, ice-cream for breakfast, no screen time limits etc. We also don’t run it like an organisation with role descriptions, annual performance reviews and employment contracts that can be terminated for poor performance.
What we do have are agreed boundaries, and we set out these decision making limits for the kids (age appropriate). These boundaries are also flexible rather than rigid to allow for contextual circumstances. We also speak with them around how these boundaries may need to change as the kids grow and require more autonomy, freedom to explore, fail and learn, and a have safe place to come back to regardless of how they have performed or what they have done. The same can probably also happen in an organisation. if something isn’t working, explore alternatives and make it safe to return back to where you were if it isn’t working as intended.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not suggesting that we maintain or try to get away from the all to common dictatorship model where decisions are made unilaterally from an ivory tower. But let’s not swing so far in the other direction that we attempt to put every decision up to a vote. A successful organisation requires a delicate balance of autonomy and collaboration, clarity about authority limits and the associated accountability, a blend of clear direction with space for innovation and emergence.
Let’s stop obsessively trying to democratise all aspects of our organisations and instead focus on creating environments that respect the complexity and humanity of our teams – some may be more democratic than others – it all depends on the context and what’s suitable as an appropriate governance structure there.
After all, isn’t our shared aim to create organisations that are not only successful and effective but also fulfilling and humane places to work? Isn’t the ultimate goal to fashion organisations that inspire us and where we find joy and growth, rather than deplete our energy and passion, diving us rather than uniting us?
The frustrated enthusiast 
If we are talking majority rules when we say democracy, I agree it is a terrible idea in many cases.
I’d love to see majority rules in hiring and firing decisions, for example. But majority rules for innovation is a terrible idea. Particularly when you’re trying to create the breakthroughs that drive growth. Breakthroughs come from the crazy ideas that nobody likes, until they work. They take people by surprise. So majority rules is just as bad as executive decision-making on that score.
Context matters. My focus is change + innovation. For this, you need decentralized systems. I.e., Complex adaptive systems. No centralized decision-making. No majority rules. For things like hiring + firing, I’d go for majority rules.
For all the bad press bureaucracy gets, it turns out to be incredibly good at reliable, efficient execution of a proven business model. Since that is the primary focus of every successful business, bureaucracy has a lot going for it. The problem isn’t bureaucracy. The problem is the lack of decentralized change + innovation to go alongside bureaucracy.
So let’s apply the right decision-making model for the right circumstances. There’s no reason we can only have one decision-making model in big companies.
Couldn’t agree more – context does matter and it’s a question of what type of decision making model makes most sense based on the type of decision we need to make. Most organisations are not at that stage yet where that would be a workable way of operating.