Like I said in an earlier comment on LinkedIn, the previous post was an exploration where I’m in a way playing the devil’s advocate for something I philosophically believe in.

What we all too often see though, in our search for balance, is that we tend to overcorrect and end up in in the shadow side of what we aimed for. Like the cycle of centralisation and decentralisation that most organisations go through with a seemingly regular cadence.

Too constrained to operate effectively we let the boundaries of decision making expand to the point where it gets too much. We feel anxious that too much autonomy was provided. Feelings of loss of control or coherence emerge and then instead of a carefully thought-out way to address the shortcomings, we snatch it all back and clamp down on the decision-making boundaries to regain control (even if as usual, control is an illusion).

I posed a question if our pursuit to democratising organisations risk overcorrecting to the extent where they become cooperatives or where the negative aspects become prominent. I have no doubts about the many positive outcomes that can come from it as well.

However, like any approach to organisational governance, it may also have potential downsides, including slower decision-making, confusion over responsibility, potential for conflicts, dilution of expertise, risk of populism, efficiency trade-offs, and overwhelming employees with decision making requirements.

Perhaps some follow-on questions are:
1. how do we best mitigate these downsides?
2. how does an organisation prevent any changes to democratise itself from falling back into the dictatorship or oligarchy that preceded it?

There are surely many organisations that have gone down that path as well.

It’s important to balance the desire for democratic principles with the need for clear accountability, effective decision-making processes, and respect for expertise (in the right context).

I know there is a big “anti-manager” sentiment here as well, but I think it at times confuses symptoms with causes. Lots of managers lack the required capabilities and authorities to be successful in their roles and the organisational systems aren’t designed in ways that are coherent, so their organisation has sets them up to fail. We then complain about their behaviour which was entirely predictable given the environment they are in…

Is an alternative to a participative democratic organisation a well-designed managerial accountability hierarchy, with capable people in roles? Where roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and people are promoted based on their merit – their skills, abilities, and achievements – rather than their seniority or other non-performance related factors.

Is there a balance between top-down decision making and bottom-up input? Maybe there is room for both a meritocratic system and democratic elements within the same organisation?