Organisations and Democracy

In democratic countries people will tend to to elect those who will most effectively govern the nation, who will rule most fairly, and who will ensure a proper balance of liberty and security.  And yet in our organizations we do not even consider electing those who run them;  rather, leaders rise to the top through a system whereby those in power select those who will follow after them.

Why is this?  Is it because there are such significant differences between nations and organizations that the argument does not carry over?  Or is it rather because we put more value in organizations than nations – we do not mind the country being badly-ruled, but we need our companies to be well-led?

I think there are a number of reasons why we do not do so.  Not least, we have just not considered it properly as a society.  When we do talk about democratic organizations we do so in the sense that they are fairly decentralized (http://www.worldblu.com/orgdemo/characteristics.php).   What I mean here is actually electing management.

Some would argue that an organization where the managers are elected would encourage corruption, or at least high levels of patronage.  I disagree: though patronage does remain in most democratic countries, they  are still much more transparently governed than non-democracies.

Others would argue that management is not about being popular, and that elected managers would not be able to make hard decisions.  Yet we trust our elected national leaders to do exactly this – to maintain a level of popularity (which they need to win elections) whilst deciding what is in the best interests of all.  Politicians have to learn that they cannot please all the people all the time, and that is what elected managers would also need to do.  But it is possible: politicians in democracies are frequently derided, but in fact most are ethical, conscientious, hard-working and principled – it is the nature of politics that compromises have to be made, and it is the nature of compromises that they cannot please all, or often even please most.

Still others would argue that management in an organization requires specific knowledge sets and experience.  This is undoubtedly true, but this is what electors need to consider, and larger organizations would be able to provide a level of permanent senior staff who are directly answerable to the elected leaders, just as in the party-civil service model.

So what are the key advantages of electing managers?  Firstly, the whole purpose of democracy is to bring greater freedom and equality at all levels.  Unnecessary hierarchy would be removed, and flatter structured organizations would be better placed to meet the challenges of the Internet age.  Secondly, there would be much greater accountability; managers would need to think further through the implications of their decisions – they would not be able to bully or intimidate or think purely of their own career.  Thirdly, it would provide much greater control for individuals in how they live their lives; democratic organisations would need to respond in a much more active way to their staff, and also to their customers and shareholders.  And fourthly, whilst some might suggest that electing managers would lead to weaker decision-making, I would strongly argue the opposite – an elected manager would have a real mandate to govern and make changes however he or she had said they would do so during the election campaign.

So if you do just one thing today, email a copy of this article to your boss.  You could always tell them they’ve got your vote.