17.sept-democracy

A new face of power: Power-with

Traditional views of power often focus on power-over: one person or group has power over another and can make them do something.

A different view comes from Mary Parker Follett, who developed the idea of power-with or co-active power.

Power-over

• Power is something one person or group has over another.

• It is often connected to hierarchy, position, authority and control.

• Example: a manager tells employees what to do.

Power-with

• Power is created together through relationships and collaboration.

• People bring their different knowledge, skills and experiences together.

• Instead of one person dominating, people influence each other and create solutions together.

• Power is therefore not something one person simply "owns"; it emerges through interaction.

WHY SHOULD WE RETURN TO ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOCRACY?

1. Ethical argument

• Workers deserve a voice because they are human beings whose lives are affected by organizational decisions.

2. Social and environmental argument

• Democratic organizations may be better able to balance different goals, including social and environmental concerns.

3. Economic argument

• Modern knowledge-based economies depend heavily on workers' knowledge, creativity, collaboration and ability to respond to change.

WORKERS AS "LABOR INVESTORS"

• Battilana, Yen, Ferreras and Ramarajan (2022) argue that workers should not simply be treated as human resources.

• Workers are labor investors.

• Shareholders invest money, financial capital.

• Workers invest their time, labor, knowledge, energy, bodies,

• Without workers, most organizational activities could not happen.

• Yet workers often have little or no say in the decisions that govern them.

• This creates a democratic problem.

• If workers invest their lives in organizations and are strongly affected by organizational decisions, they should have meaningful power to participate in those decisions.

THE FETISHIZATION OF SHAREHOLDER VALUE

• Traditional corporations often focus heavily on shareholder value.

• This means that organizations prioritize profit, financial returns, growth, shareholder interests.

• The problem is that focusing mainly on financial returns can create negative externalities.

Possible consequences

Environmental

• environmental destruction;

• climate consequences;

• unsustainable use of resources.

Social

• harm to communities;

• poorer working conditions;

• effects on health and wellbeing.

Inequality

• reproduction of class inequality;

• gender inequality;

• racial inequality;

• age inequality.

Organizational

• less space for creativity and innovation if financial targets dominate everything.

Democratic

• people can become less involved in civic and political life;

• economic power can become concentrated;

• organizations can influence society without being democratically governed.

THREE ARGUMENTS FOR DEMOCRATIZING WORK

1)ETHICAL ARGUMENT

• Ferreras says that a company is not only about making money. It is also a place where decisions are made that strongly affect people's lives.

  There are two groups involved in the company: Capital investors = shareholders/owners who invest money and Labor investors = workers who invest their time, work, and skills. Because organizational decisions have major consequences for workers' lives, workers should have a right to participate in those decisions.

Connection to human rights

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that all people are free and equal in dignity and rights. The problem is that workers can be equal citizens in society but have very little power at work. For example, they may have no real say in decisions about their working conditions, pay, schedules, or how the organization is run. So Ferreras asks: If people are supposed to have equal rights, why do they lose so much influence when they enter the workplace?

Firm–state analogy

• Ferreras compares a company to a state to make this point easier to see.

  • A state makes rules and decisions that affect citizens.

  • A company makes rules and decisions that affect workers.

• In a democratic state, citizens are supposed to have a voice in how they are governed.

• Why shouldn't workers also have a voice in how their workplace is governed?

• This does not mean that a company and a country are exactly the same. The comparison is mainly about power, decision-making, and participation.

Firms as islands of centralized planning

• This means that a company can be like a small area of centralized control inside a much more decentralized market. Outside the company, the market has many different people and organizations making their own decisions. Inside the company, however, decisions can be much more hierarchical. So even though the overall economy is based on markets and competition, individual companies can operate through centralized decision-making and hierarchy.

2)SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ARGUMENT

• Organizational democracy may also help organizations pursue multiple objectives rather than focusing only on profit.

• This connects to the idea of the Triple Bottom Line:

• People

  • Workers, communities and human wellbeing.

• Planet

  • Environmental sustainability.

• Profit

  • Economic sustainability and financial performance.

• A democratic organization may have more ability to discuss and balance these different goals.

Why power-sharing matters

• Different groups will often have different interests.

  • shareholders may want higher financial returns;

  • workers may want better working conditions;

  • local communities may want environmental protection;

  • customers may want affordable products;

  • society may want sustainable production.

• Deliberation and power-sharing allow these different interests to be discussed.

• Democracy creates a way to negotiate and manage conflict between different interests.

3)ECONOMIC ARGUMENT: THE KNOWLEDGE AND CREATION ECONOMY

• The modern economy depends more on knowledge, creativity, innovation and services than on traditional industrial production.

• In the past, organizations often relied on repetitive tasks, strict hierarchies and predictable processes.

• Today, they need workers who can think independently, solve problems and adapt to change.

• This means organizations may benefit from giving employees more freedom to make decisions and share their ideas.

COLLABORATIVE CREATION AS A DRIVER OF SUCCESS

• Modern organizations increasingly need to bring together different perspectives.

• The idea of "bringing your whole self to work" means recognizing that workers are diverse; creative; imperfect.

• Instead of seeing diversity as a problem, organizations can use it as a resource.

• A good organizational climate allows people to speak openly; challenge ideas; share knowledge.

• The quality of relationships becomes important for organizational success.

• This connects directly to democratization because democracy requires people to listen to and learn from one another.

Democratic Design for Innovation

• "Work isn't working."

• Traditional industrial organizations were designed around scale; bureaucracy; hierarchy; standardization; control.

• These structures were useful in a relatively stable industrial environment.

• But in an environment of constant change, the same structures can become limitations.

• Modern organizations need flexibility; creativity; fast responses.

• Therefore, democratic and distributed forms of organizing may fit the modern economy better.

WHY IS ORGANIZATIONAL DEMOCRACY NOT THE NORM?

1) INEFFICIENCY AND ENDLESS MEETINGS

• Democratic decision-making can take a lot of time.

• Problems include:

  • endless meetings;

  • difficulty reaching consensus;

  • unclear responsibility;

  • slow decision-making;

  • leadership expertise being ignored.

• Not everyone has the same knowledge about every issue.

• Therefore, some people argue that organizations need leaders and experts who can make decisions efficiently.

2) "WHEN THE LUNATICS RUN THE ASYLUM"

• This argument questions whether workers always have the knowledge necessary to make organizational decisions.

• Some people should think and make strategic decisions, while others should carry out the work.

• Critics of democracy argue that workers may not understand:

  • wider organizational strategy;

  • investment decisions;

  • financial issues;

• However, the democratic response is that workers also possess important knowledge that managers may not have because they are directly involved in the work.

• Who has the knowledge needed to make good decisions?

• Critics argue that removing hierarchy can create other problems:

• Lack of strategic understanding

  • Workers may not always understand the wider implications of organizational decisions.

• More politicking

  • If formal structures disappear, people may compete for influence informally.

• Loss of shared identity

  • Highly autonomous teams may develop their own identities and priorities, making coordination more difficult.

• Increasing complexity

  • Removing rules and formal structures can sometimes make organizational coordination more difficult rather than easier.

3) THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY

• An oligarchy is a situation where power becomes concentrated in the hands of a small group. Michels argued that this happens even when organizations originally try to be democratic.

• Some people develop more specialized knowledge
  They become more important to the organization
  They become leaders
  Leaders gain more control over information and decisions
  Leaders become separated from ordinary members
  A small group becomes powerful

• As organizations become more complex, they need specialists. Specialists gain knowledge and influence, and this can gradually create a new elite.

• So even an organization that begins democratically can become hierarchical over time.

4) DEGENERATION THESIS

• The degeneration thesis argues that democratic organizations can struggle to remain democratic over time. Historically, organizations that tried it often moved in one of two directions:

Selling out

• The organization moves toward: democratic control → managerial control. Managers and formal hierarchy become stronger because the organization wants greater efficiency, coordination or growth.

Falling out

• The organization fails because it cannot maintain enough coordination among autonomous individuals.

• Too much hierarchy → loss of democracy. But: Too little structure → difficulty coordinating people.

5) THE TYRANNY OF STRUCTURELESSNESS

• If you remove formal structures, power does not disappear. It can simply become informal and less visible.

• Imagine a meeting where everyone is supposedly equal. There may be no formal leader or official hierarchy but perhaps three people talk most of the time, certain people have stronger friendships and some people control information. This creates an informal hierarchy.

• The problem is that informal power can actually be harder to challenge because it is not officially recognized.

• This is why democracy requires some structure, rather than simply removing all structure.

CASE: ENSPIRAL

an organization trying to distribute power.

The goal was to create meaningful work while experimenting with new ways of organizing.

• SOCIAL PURPOSE: Enspiral brought together freelancers and entrepreneurs who wanted to build livelihoods while also making the world a better place.

• COLLECTIVE FREELANCING: Instead of seeing freelancers as completely isolated individuals, Enspiral connected them through a network.

• COLLABORATIVE TOOLS: Enspiral used different tools to distribute power.

• SHARED VALUES: Important Enspiral values included entrepreneurialism, collaboration, autonomy. These values help hold the organization together even without a traditional hierarchy.

DECISION-MAKING: CONSENT AND ADVICE

• how democratic decision-making can avoid the problem of endless consensus meetings.

• Consent and agreement

• Agreement means: "Everyone thinks this is the right decision."

• Consent means: "I do not have a serious objection to this decision going ahead."

• Therefore, people do not have to completely agree. The aim is to reach a state of no valid objection.

• From agreement to permission or a state of “no objections”.

• On difficult issues, it is easier to find agreement when you have more info about people’s positions

• Instead of “yes” and “no”, distinguish “preference”, tolerance”, “objection” e.g. I prefer apples, I tolerate any fruit, I object to junk food

• People are more willing to make concessions after their preferences have been acknowledged

• Mutual tolerance > mutual preference

RETROSPECTIVES

• A retrospective is a structured opportunity for a team to reflect on how they worked together.

• Sharing and reflection

• Identify how to improve teamwork by reflecting on how we worked together – what worked, what didn’t, and why.

• Identify legitimate differences and individual development areas a.k.a. ‘backhands’

• People are not equally knowledgeable or equally skilled at every task.

• One person may lead in one situation because they have the relevant expertise, while another person leads in another situation.

CHECK-INS

• A check-in is a practice where people begin a meeting by briefly sharing how they are doing.

• The purpose is to make people present; heard; aware of others; emotionally connected.

• People become mentally present. People listen actively to one another. The group reconnects with why they are working together. People understand the emotional situation of others. Seeing people as complete human beings can make people more patient and understanding toward one another.

COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITIES, NOT JUST INDIVIDUALS

• The team becomes the important unit

• The team, not the individual, as the defining unit. With each other, for each other mentality.

• Small teams of five to seven people are needed to maintain trust and accountability.

• From individual Objectives and Key Results (OKR), evaluation, and bonus to team-based ones

• The idea is that collaboration should be rewarded rather than encouraging everyone to compete against each other.

A NEW DIMENSION OF POWER?

• Follett distinguishes between three ways of dealing with differences.

Domination

• One side gets what it wants

Compromise

• Both sides give something up. Neither gets exactly what they wanted.

Integration

• The parties find a new solution that addresses the important needs of both sides.

• t is about creating a solution that neither side had originally thought of.

FOLLETT'S PROCESS OF INTEGRATION

1. Open dialogue in which everyone participates and lays out their point of view on a particular matter

2. Exposure to different perspectives: People hear views they may not have considered before. This can make them rethink their assumptions.

3. Recognize differences: If disagreement remains, the group recognizes it openly. The disagreement becomes a shared problem, rather than one person versus another.

4. Find a solution together: The group looks for a solution that addresses the important interests of different sides.

5. Reframe the problem: Sometimes the best solution comes from changing how the problem itself is understood.

POWER OVER / POWER WITH

• Power does not come from someone's job title or position. It is also not about forcing or controlling other people.

• Instead, power comes from working together. People use their different knowledge and experiences to influence and help each other.

• People do not simply give orders to each other. Instead, they look at the situation and work together to figure out what needs to be done.

• Follett calls this “the law of the situation”: the situation itself helps determine what should happen, rather than one person simply telling everyone what to do.

• “Power-with” means that power is created together through relationships and cooperation. It keeps developing as people interact and work together.

FOLLETT: PARTNERSHIP AND ADULT–ADULT RELATIONSHIPS

• Traditional Management produces parent-child relationships at work. The assumption is that people need to be motivated and taken care of to be productive.

•   Being adult-adult doesn’t mean we get to do what we want or that there is a leadership vacuum. It means being in a partnership, accountable to each other.

Affective Control in Collaborative Work

• Resch, Hoyer and Steyaert (2021) argue that collaborative work can create affective control

• Control can work through people's emotional attachment to the community rather than through direct orders.

• A traditional leadership figure can be replaced by the community.

• The authors call this the "communal Other."

• Collectively held fantasies attached to working in collaborative community. Driving intrinsic motivation, engagement, and accountability, but easily leading to frustration, overwork and burnout.

• Jouissance: Affective control works through paradoxical tensions of pleasure and pain

THE THREE FANTASIES OF AFFECTIVE CONTROL

Entrepreneurial fantasy

• Limitless personal and organizational growth.

• This can create motivation and high performance.

• But the problem is that people may never feel that they have done enough.

Spiritual fantasy

• a quest for purpose, meaning and a true self.

• Work becomes a way of finding meaning in life.

• Utopia of harmony, passion, and impact leads to rapid personal growth

• But people struggle to maintain boundaries.

Tribal fantasy

• belonging to a caring and trusted community

• vision of a work-family fosters positive intent and mutual support

• but can turn into a demand to share and oversharing.

Affective Control Recommendations

• We can’t outrun jouissance – it’s part of the human condition

• Regular joint reflection, distancing and care.

• Training ambiguity tolerance, thinking between systems

• Foster practices that invite:

  • Emotional Openness

  • Belonging in Difference

  • Social-emotional competence and facilitation are essential collaborative leadership skills

1) In very simple terms, this article investigates the question of ‘what happens to control’ in organizational settings that are non-hierarchical, democratic, collaborative, community-based, and where there are no leaders. What is your expectation about control dynamics in such contexts?

I would expect control not to disappear, even if there is no clear boss or formal hierarchy. Instead, control would probably become more informal and come from the group itself. People might control their own behaviour because they want to fit into the community, contribute to the group and be seen as a good member. There may be less direct control, such as rules and orders from a manager, but more pressure from shared values, expectations and relationships. So, in these organizations, people may control themselves and each other rather than being controlled by one leader.

2) The authors of this article argue that an increase in employee participation and autonomy went hand in hand with a move to normative and later neo-normative forms of control. How would you explain this link?

When employees get more participation and autonomy, they are given more freedom to decide how they work and how they behave. However, this does not mean that there is no control. Instead, control can move from controlling people's actions to controlling their values, identities and attitudes.

With normative control, organizations try to make employees accept and internalize the organization's values and culture. Employees then behave in the "right" way because they believe in the organization's values, rather than because a manager is watching them.

Neo-normative control goes even further. Employees are encouraged to bring their whole personality and "authentic self" to work. Being enthusiastic, creative, social, passionate and emotionally involved can become part of what is expected from a good employee.

So there is a paradox: employees have more freedom, but they can also feel more pressure to behave in ways that fit the organization's culture. The control becomes less visible because people partly control themselves.

3) The article takes an interest in “new collaborative work arrangements” with a focus on the role of community. It suggests that the current literature has predominantly framed communities through the lens of functional rationality, that means that communities are considered to serve an instrumental function. How does a ‘psychological view’ of community challenge this framing? Which aspect of community life does it bring to the foreground?

A functional view sees community mainly as something useful for the organization. For example, having a strong community can improve cooperation, trust, communication and productivity. In this view, the community is basically a tool that helps the organization work better.

The psychological view looks more at what the community means to the people inside it. Community is not only useful for getting work done; people can become emotionally attached to it. They may want to belong, feel accepted, be understood and feel that they are part of something meaningful.

This brings the emotional and psychological side of community to the foreground. It shows that people do not just participate in a community because it is useful. They can genuinely need and desire belonging and connection.

This is important for the article because this emotional attachment can also become a form of control. If belonging is very important to someone, they may feel pressure to participate, share, contribute and behave according to the community's expectations.

4) According to the analysis, what is the flipside of striving (too much) for purpose, meaning and connectedness at work?

The problem is that something positive can become too much.

If people become too focused on finding purpose and meaning in their work, they may become extremely invested in it. They might work too much, have difficulty switching off and allow work to take over their personal life.

If people strive too much for connectedness and belonging, they can also become emotionally exhausted. They may feel responsible for other people's feelings and feel pressure to constantly participate and share.

The authors therefore show that purpose, growth and belonging have a darker side. What starts as something enjoyable and meaningful can eventually lead to overwork, exhaustion, disappointment and loss of personal boundaries.

This connects to the idea of jouissance: people can continue chasing something they enjoy even when it starts causing them pain.

5) The article does not really address the question of resistance. Why could resistance be rather difficult/ unlikely in the context of collaborative work settings? In the absence of bureaucracy, managerialism and a hierarchical leadership figure, what form could resistance possibly take?

Resistance could be difficult because there is no obvious person or structure to resist against. In a traditional organization, an employee can resist a manager, rules, bureaucracy or a specific decision. In a collaborative organization, control can be much more hidden and spread throughout the community.

For example, if everyone is expected to be passionate, supportive and involved, an employee might feel that they should want to participate. If they do not want to participate, it can feel like they are letting down their friends or community rather than simply breaking a rule.

This makes resistance complicated because the control may come from shared values and people's own desires, rather than from someone giving orders.

So resistance could involve creating distance from the community and its expectations, rather than directly fighting a manager.

The main point is that in collaborative organizations, the same community that gives people freedom, meaning and belonging can also create pressure. That makes it harder to clearly see what you are resisting against.

1) Why do workers’ disempowerment and framing as ‘human resources’ contradict the very tenets of democratic societies?

In a democratic society, people are supposed to have rights, freedom and a voice in decisions that affect their lives. However, workers often have very little say in important decisions at work, even though those decisions can strongly affect their income, working conditions, security and everyday life.

Calling workers “human resources” can also make them sound like another resource that the organization owns or uses, similar to money or equipment. The authors argue that this ignores the fact that workers are people who invest their time, energy, knowledge and lives into the organization.

This creates a contradiction: outside the workplace, workers are citizens who are supposed to have democratic rights, but inside the workplace they can be treated as people who simply have to follow decisions made by others. The authors therefore argue that democratic values should not stop at the workplace door.

2) How has the dominance of neoliberalism eroded workers’ ability to engage in collective organizing, consolidating the concentration of power in the hands of capital holders?

The authors argue that neoliberalism placed much more emphasis on markets, competition, individual responsibility and maximizing value for shareholders. At the same time, workers became more individualized and less connected through collective organizations.

For example, work has become more flexible and insecure, with more temporary, part-time and other forms of precarious employment. This can make it harder for workers to organize together because they may not share the same workplace, employment conditions or long-term relationship with the organization.

At the same time, unions and other forms of collective worker power have become weaker in many contexts. When workers have less ability to organize collectively, they have less power to negotiate with employers.

This strengthens the position of capital holders, because they remain organized around ownership and have formal rights in corporate governance, while workers become more dependent on their individual ability to negotiate

3) Which moral and instrumental reasons are speaking for democratizing work?

There are both moral and practical reasons for democratizing work. The moral reason is about fairness and democracy. Workers are affected by decisions made in organizations, so they should have a meaningful voice in those decisions. They contribute not only their labor but also their time, knowledge and lives. It is therefore fair that they have some power over how the organization is run. The practical reason is that giving workers more power can also benefit organizations and society. It can increase motivation and commitment, make better use of workers' knowledge and encourage creativity and innovation. Workers may also help make better decisions because they understand their work. In addition, workplace democracy can encourage organizations to pay more attention to social and environmental goals. In simple terms, the moral argument is that workers deserve a voice because decisions affect their lives, while the practical argument is that giving them a voice can also help organizations work better.

4) Why are flat organizations not necessarily democratic, democratic organizations are not necessarily flat?

A flat organization has fewer levels of hierarchy. There may be no traditional boss, or there may be fewer managers between workers and top management.

But being flat does not automatically mean that power is equally shared.

For example, an organization might have no formal managers, but a small group of people could still make most of the important decisions. There can also be informal power, where some people have more influence because they are more experienced, confident, respected or socially connected.

At the same time, a democratic organization does not have to be completely flat. It can still have different roles and levels of responsibility while giving workers meaningful opportunities to participate in important decisions.

For example, there can be managers who are responsible for particular tasks, but workers could still have representation in major organizational decisions.

5) How are power sharing and purpose intertwined and what are possible tensions?

Power-sharing and organizational purpose are connected because who has power influences what the organization considers important. If most decision-making power belongs to shareholders or capital owners, the organization may be strongly focused on financial returns. If workers have more power, they can bring other concerns into decision-making, such as working conditions, wellbeing, social justice or environmental sustainability. This means democratizing work could help organizations think about purpose as something broader than simply making profit. However, there can also be tensions. Different groups may have different ideas about what the organization's purpose should be. Workers might prioritize good working conditions and sustainability, while shareholders might prioritize financial returns. Even workers themselves may disagree about what the organization should focus on. There is therefore no guarantee that giving workers more power will create one shared purpose. Another tension is that an organization can have a very positive purpose while still being undemocratic. For example, a company might say that it wants to help society or protect the environment, but workers may still have very little say in how the organization operates.