Democracy Stops at the Factory Gates - Essay Example

Einhorn asserts that democracy stops at the factory gates. What are the limits to organisational democracy within market economies and what might a post-capitalist form of work organisation look like? 1. Introduction The continuous change in political and social ethics globally has led to the limitation of freedoms promoted by the democratic style of governance; the limitation of democracy has been a phenomenon developed in most social, economic and political fields under the need for increase of market needs, i.e. the need for increase in the employees’ performance; moreover, it has been noted that the limitation of democracy in the workplace has been out of the control of political leaders; current paper focuses on the examination of the aspects of democracy across organizations, or else, the organisational democracy. Through the research made on the existing literature, it has been proved that organisational democracy is reduced under the influence of the interests of employers; on the other hand, the need for salary has been proved, in most cases, to be stronger than the need for fairer conditions of work. In this context, the phrase of Eihorn that ‘democracy stops at the factory gates’ can be characterized as justified. However, the limitation of freedom in its various aspects cannot lead to the limitation of the fights for fair conditions of life; entrepreneurial interests need to be satisfied – at the level that each enterprise is based on the entrepreneur’s – or the shareholders – investment; however, a balance should exist between the interests of all parties in the workplace; the succession of the capitalist (by a post-capitalist) form of work organisation can be considered as necessary; this succession has been started; the terms of this transition and the characteristics of the post-capitalist form of work organisation are also explained in this paper. 2. Organizational democracy – characteristics, limits In order to understand the role and the characteristics of national democracy it would be necessary to refer primarily to its definition; in accordance with Salamon (2000, p.147) ‘organisational democracy involves an interrelationship between participative democracy (membership involvement in policy formulation and decision making) and representational democracy (election of representatives to positions of ‘government’ or leadership)’; organizational democracy can refer to all aspects of organizational activities being depended on the organizational environment (internal and external) and the country’s political system and social ethics. The identification of the forms of organizational democracy requires that the characteristics of the environment, in which organizational democracy is developed, are clearly explained. More specifically, organisational democracy cannot be viewed as a social and political concept irrelevant with the political and social conditions; in fact, organizational democracy is considered as part of the democracy as a particular style of governance. This means that organizational democracy in a specific country (or industry) is likely to the affected by the democracy as reflected in the governance of the above country; in its negative view, the above assumption leads to the conclusion that the potential failures or weaknesses of democracy in a specific country can be adopted by the organizations operating in this country – organizational democracy is then negatively affected by the democracy as a style of governance. Organizational democracy can have different forms in accordance with the social ethics and the structure/ characteristics of the existing political system. The dependency of organizational democracy on a country’s political system is highlighted in the study of Edelstein et al. (1979); in the above study the differences in organizational democracy between USA and Britain are examined; it is assumed that ‘British centralization outside the nationalized industries is limited, loose and ineffective enough to stimulate opposition’ (Edelstein et al., 1979, p.21); therefore, the increase of organizational democracy in Britain compared to the USA can be characterized as expected. The organizational democracy indicates the existence of choices regarding the development of the organizational framework; the freedom in developing different forms of work and the freedom to bargain for the rights in the workplace are aspects (or else, benefits) of the organizational democracy. In this context, organizational democracy is differentiated from the organizational oligarchy in which ‘the opportunity for a choice between at least two alternatives is eliminated’ (Edelstein et al., 1979, p.32); the existence of the organizational oligarchy proves that the democracy is not a standard characteristic of organizations; on the contrary, organizational democracy is continuously under threat; its limitation is often regarded as a potential tool for controlling the social beliefs and support on specific values and rights. In other words, organizational democracy can be limited but the level of this limitation is not standardized; it is rather depended on the political norms and the social culture of a specific society; however, it should be noted that the political system is depended – most commonly – on the social support; in this way, the organizational democracy is depended on the power of the people to fight for its establishment and development. Under these terms, the existence of organizational democracy is related with the ability of the local population – interested party – to offer their support. However, when there are other interests – opposite ones – which are considered as a priority, is it possible for the organizational democracy to be adequately supported? This question emerges in the workplace; workers need their work; even if their rights in the workplace are violated, a dilemma appears: is the support of the rights at a higher level of importance than the compensation received for the work offered? In practice, workers choose to retain their work and avoid to proceed to claims for their rights; in this way, the value of organizational democracy is limited; organizational oligarchy – as described above by Edelstein et al. (1979) is likely to appear. In accordance with Genov (2004) ‘the studies of organizational democracy have to do with a very large range of organizations: a) private companies, b) public companies, c) the State, d) the social sector and e) the self-managed organisations’ (Genov, 2004, p.340); it would be expected that organizational democracy is interpreted differently across the above sectors; however, organizational democracy has specific characteristics; its potential differentiation would be related with the different political structure and social culture of each specific country; in the context of industries and operational units within the same country organizational democracy is expected to have a main – common – form. Genov (2004) also notes that organizational democracy can be considered as related with the ‘organizational effectiveness and efficiency as well as the quality’ (Genov, 2004, 338); the above fact does not necessarily lead to the development of high differences in the forms of organizational democracy across industries – as described above. Organizational democracy is often related with the democracy in politics; in fact, organizational democracy is part of the democracy in its general context; towards this direction, it is noted by Axtmann (2007, p.228) that if the organizational democracy could affect the expansion of democracy worldwide – referring to the governance of countries in the international community – then efforts should be made in order for the organizational democracy to be developed in organizations of the private sector – since this way the public sector would be also benefited; however, the interaction between the private and the public sector cannot be measured; it cannot, also, be considered as guaranteed; the level at which organizational democracy can be affected by the level democracy in a country’s governance is depended on the social culture and characteristics but also the level of freedom available in expressing opposition to a country’s political system. At this point another issue appears: which are the persons that need to be involved in the establishment and the development of organizational democracy? The above question refers to the participation of individuals in the above process as a necessary prerequisite for its success. Indeed, the successful establishment of organisational democracy in the private sector has been related with the leadership skills (Mullins, 2008, p.261); in the case of democracy, as a style of governance, its development can be achieved only through political leaders that support the specific style of governance; in case that the willingness of leaders for the development of democracy does not exist then it can be expected that democracy will be limited both in the private and the public sector. In accordance with this view, the development of democracy as a country’s style of governance should be enforced and supported by the local people – who have interests from the further increase of democracy across a particular country. The important role of leaders in establishing the democracy in a particular organisation is also highlighted in the study of Gadot et al. (2006); in the specific study it is noted that organisational democracy is related with the development of a set of specific relationships in the context of the internal and the external organizational environment; the firm’s leader enhances democracy by supporting these relationships – either directly or indirectly; the following relationships and interests are indicatively mentioned by Gadot et al. (2006) as affecting the democracy across a particular organization: ‘the external interests of shareholders, the supply chain relationships and strategic alliances’ (Gadot et al., 2006, p.286) Organizational democracy – as described above – if exists within a specific organisation is expected to support the organisational performance – mostly by contributing to the increase of employee satisfaction and the following increase of employees’ productivity. Democracy in organizations has been found to be affected by the democracy as a style of governance; therefore, the explanation of the potential threats or failures of organisational democracy is related with the identification of the characteristics of political systems, which are related with the workplace – the most common system of this type is the capitalism. 3. Characteristics of a post-capitalist form of work organisation One of the most significant characteristics of the post-capitalist form of work organization would be the independency of the worker from the capital as the factor controlling all phases of the production; in order to identify the characteristics of such an organization it would be necessary to refer primarily to the main aspect of capitalism – in the context of which the modern workplace has been designed and operates. In accordance with Duncan (1989) capitalism is a system ‘the maintenance of which requires a general acceptance of the rightness of the system’ (Duncan, 1989, p.31). The framework of the capitalism can be differentiated in the international communities; governments can choose to add their own elements on the system of capitalism – which is usually considered as the opposite of the Marxism; it is for this reason that Duncan noted that ‘in advanced capitalism the state is the control center of the society’ (Duncan, 1989, 136); this means that in such a system the government has the power to intervene drastically in all sectors of the economic and social life and impose its own rules; the capitalism of this form leads to the limitation of the individualism, a concept that emphasizes on the power of individual to develop their own initiatives in all social, economic and political activities. Under these terms, in an post-capitalist form of work organization individuals could be more independent from the control of the capital – this control can be also developed by the state in the context described above; in this way, the competition in commerce would be increased; the initiatives of individuals in regard to various economic activities would be supported. On the other hand, Graham (2006) supports that the capitalism favours the development of inequalities in all aspects of life; more specifically, it is made clear that the main characteristics of capitalism is the exploitation of individuals; this form of exploitation – named as capitalist exploitation – has the following targets: ‘on keeping alive communities built on exploitation as well as life-destroying work’ (Graham, 2006, p.13); in other words, the development of exploitation of workers is one of the priorities of capitalism; a post – capitalism system of work would be characterized by the elimination of exploitation: individuals could decide on their work-schedule ensuring the existing of a balance between the time spending on the work and the time spending on personal life; in capitalism this balance is continuously violated. The above suggestion can lead to the assumption that the individual would not be obliged to work for the community; on the contrary, the support of the community would still remain one of the key criteria for participating in various economic and social activities; but the terms of this participation would be set by the worker – through appropriate negotiations with the employer; they were not set only by the capitalist – the one who has the control of work in a capitalism system - who can be an individual or the state. Capitalism is based on a particular activity: ‘the buying and selling of labour’ (Haworth et al., 1997, p.136); the above process is controlled by the capitalist; in a post – capitalist form of work organization this procedure would not exist; the terms of work would be decided by fair negotiations between the worker and the employer; the exploitation of the worker – as described above – would not be supported by the state. Haworth et al. (1997) notes that a system of post-capitalism would be characterized as a ‘revolutionism’, a system that could have elements of various systems, like the ‘socialism, the communism, the anarchism or even the Utopianism’ (Haworth et al., 1997, p.186); this view should be criticized as it leads to the assumption that a post-capitalism system would not be viable – the systems included in the ‘revolutionism’ system described above had a short duration – whenever they were applied in practice – an exception would be the Chinese political system which can be characterized as a post-capitalism system – using the above justification; the Chinese political system has been proved as strong enough in order to face the social and political turbulences that have been developed in China since the introduction of the communism. Under these terms, the post-capitalism form of work organization – having the characteristics described above – would have my chances to survive in the modern market. In its advanced form, the post-capitalist form of work organization would based on the principle that work is not as necessary as the capitalist claims; by liberating the individual from the necessity of work, a new form of freedom would result: it would be the freedom from the system – referring to the political and economic framework of a capitalistic society. Towards this direction, Wilson (2004) notes that a post – capitalist form of work ‘would allow humans to engage in their free activity’ (Wilson, 2004, p. 18); in other words, a post-capitalist form of work organization would offer to individuals the chance to develop their personal skills and increase their seld-confidence being able to define the terms of their work and even to decide not to work if their conditions of life would not allow their engagement in a work position – an engagement that in the capitalist system is obliged by the capitalist. 4. Conclusion The study of the aspects of the capitalist form of work organization has led to the assumption that the capitalism emphasizes on a particular obligation of individuals: the obligation for work; in the context of capitalism the obligation for work is not enhanced in order to support the improvement of the quality of life of individuals (Doogan, 2009, p.17); on the contrary, it is related with the support of the interests of the capitalist who controls the procedure of work (involving in buying and selling of the worker’s services, as highlighted above by Haworth et al. (1997). The appearance and the development of a post-capitalist form of work would result to the following events: a) the increase of the worker’s free time – time to spend on the personal life, b) the increase of the freedom of individual – freedom to decide on the terms of his engagement to a specific job. In the literature, it has been proved that the survival of a post-capitalist form of work organization would be possible but it would be necessary that appropriate arrangements would be made on the country’s political system; the liberation of the state from capitalism would be necessary in order for the liberation of the individuals from this system to follow. References Axtmann, R., 2007. Democracy: problems and perspectives. Edinburgh University Press Doogan, K., 2009. New Capitalism? The Transformation of Work. Polity Duncan, G., 1989. Democracy and the capitalist state. CUP Archive Edelstein, D., Warner, M., 1979. Comparative union democracy: organisation and opposition in British and American unions. Transaction Publishers Gadot, E., Drory, A., 2006. Handbook of organizational politics. Edward Elgar Publishing Genov, N., 2004. Advances in sociological knowledge: over half a century. VS Verlag Gibson-Graham, J., 2006.A postcapitalist politics. University of Minnesota Press Haworth, J., Iso-Ahola, S., 1997. Work, leisure and well-being. Routledge Mullins, L., 2008. Essentials of Organisational Behaviour. Pearson Education Salamon, M., 2000. Industrial relations: theory and practice. Pearson Education Wilson, S., 2004. The struggle over work: the end of work" and employment alternatives for post-industrial societies. Routledge Read More