Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Worker Democracy and Worker Productivity

Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A major source of oppression in industrial and post-industrial society is the restrictive and highly authoritarian nature of the workplace. One response is to democratize the workplace by increasing the participation of workers in making decisions and in choosing and evaluating managers as well as sharing in the ownership of the firm. These are not new ideas, and there are many examples of organizations pursuing various forms of democratic practices. However, a major objection is that such participation would compromise economic and other types of organizational productivity. This article examines the empirical support for that argument over a wide range of types of organizations in which workers participate in important decisions affecting their welfare. The overall results of this survey across many different forms of work organization suggest that the evidence supports the opposite conclusion, that worker participation increases productivity, particularly when workers share the benefits of higher productivity. The challenge is to ascertain ways of spreading these practices more widely.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alchian, A., and Demsetz, H. (1972). Production information costs, and economic organization. Am. Econ. Rev. 62: 777–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almond, G., and Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachrach, P., and Botwinick, A. (1992). A Radical Theory of Participatory Democracy, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batt, R., and Appelbaum, E. (1995). Worker participation in diverse settings: Does the form affect the outcome, and if so, who benefits? Br. J. Ind. Relat. 33: 353–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, K. (1967). Worker-Owned Plywood Companies: An Economic Analysis, Washington State University Press, Pullman, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, H. S., Ham, S., Melton, L., and O’Brien, J. (2001). Evaluating the Accelerated Schools Approach, Manpower Development Research Corporation, New York. www.mdrc.org.

  • Bonin, J., and Putterman, L. (2002). Economics of Cooperation and the Labor-Managed Economy, Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooke, P. P., and Price, J. L. (1989). The determinants of employee absenteeism: An empirical test of a causal model. J. Occup. Psychol. 62: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C., and Reich, M. (1989). When does union-management cooperation work? A look at NUMMI and GM-Van Nuys. Calif. Manage. Rev. 31: 26–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelli, P., and Neumark, D. (2001). Do “high performance” work practices improve establishment-level outcomes? Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 54: 737–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnoy, M., and Levin, H. M. (1985). Schooling and Work in the Democratic State, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. (2004). A community of ex-cons shows how to bring prisoners back into society. New York Times (January 2).

  • Cole, G. D. H. (1920). Social Theory, Methuen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, M. A., and Svejnar, J. (1990). The performance effects of employee ownership plans. In Blinder, A. (ed.), Paying for Productivity, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirkswager, E. J. (ed.), (2002). Teachers as Owners, Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, A. K. (2004). The influence of management on the cost of fire protection. J. Pol. Anal. Manage. 23: 71–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eby, L. T., Freeman, D. M., Rush, M. C., and Lance, C. E. (1999). Motivational bases of affective organizational commitment: A partial test of an integrative theoretical model. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 72: 463–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fromm, E. (1968). The Revolution of Hope, Harper & Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, E. S. (1984). Producer cooperatives and democratic theory: The case of the plywood firms. In Jackall, R., and Levin, H. M. (eds.), Worker Cooperatives in America, pp. 171–214.

  • Greenberg, E. S., Grunberg, L., and Daniel, K. (1996). Industrial work and political participation: Beyond simple spillover. Pol. Res. Quart. 49: 305–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopfenberg, W., Levin, H. M., Chase, C., Christensen, G., Moore, M., Soler, P., Brunner, I., Keller, B., and Rodriguez, G. (1992). The Accelerated Schools Resource Guide, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackall, R., and Levin, H. M. (eds.), (1984). Worker Cooperatives in America, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. C. (1984). American producer cooperatives and employee-owned firms: A historical perspective. In Jackall, R., and Levin, H. M. (eds.), Worker Cooperatives in America, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. pp. 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. C., and Schneider, D. J. (1984). Self-help producer cooperatives: Government-administered cooperatives during the depression. In Jackall, R., and Levin, H. M. (eds.), Worker Cooperatives in America, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. pp. 57–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Adm. Rev. 62: 231–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, H. M. (1984). Employment and productivity of producer cooperatives. In Jackall, R., and Levin, H. M. (eds.), Worker Cooperatives in America, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. pp. 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, D. (1995). Reinventing the workplace, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDuffie, J. P., and Krafcik, J. (1992). Integrating technology and human resources for high-performance manufacturing: Evidence from the international auto industry. In Useem, M. (ed.), Transforming Organizations, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T. H. (2000). The impact of worker ownership on Firm-Level performance: A comparative study, Doctoral dissertation, Department of Economics, Yale University, UMI Number 9973734, UMI, Ann Arbor, MI.

  • McCue, C. P., and Gianakis, G. A. (1997). The relationship between job satisfaction and performance: The case of local government finance officers in Ohio. Public Productivity and Manage. Rev. 21, 170–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. I., and Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Acad. Manage. J. 29: 727–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nalbantian, H. R. (1987). Incentives, Cooperation, and Risk Sharing: Economic and Psychological Perspectives on Employment Contracts, Rowman & Littlefield, Totowa, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Employee Ownership (2004). Employee Ownership and Corporate Performance. Downloaded January 24, 2004. http://www.nceo.org/library/corpperf.html.

  • Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pencavel, J. (2001). Worker Participation: Lessons from the Worker Co-ops of the Pacific Northwest, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, M. M., McGee, G. W., and Cavender, J. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the relationships between individual performance. Acad. Manage. Rev. 9: 712–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community, Simon Schuster, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S., Wang, S. W., Sanders, W., Wright, S. P., and Stringfield, S. (1999). Two and Three-Year Achievement Results on the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System for Restructure Schools in Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, Memphis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg, S. (2003). Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental management at NUMMI. J. Manage. Stud. 40: 1783–1802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schur, L. (2003). Employment and the creation of an active citizenry. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 42: 751–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1937). The Wealth of Nations, Random House, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, H. T., and Logan, C. (1982). Mondragon: An Economic Analysis, George Allen & Unwin, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. (1975). Incentives, risk and information: Notes toward a theory of hierarchy. Bell J. Econ. 6: 553–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1964). On bureaucracy. In Gerth, H., and Mills, C. W. (eds.), Max Weber, Oxford University Press. New York, pp. 196–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, M., and Kruse, K. (1990). Profit sharing and productivity. In Blinder, A. (ed.), Paying for Productivity, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, W. F., and Whyte, K. K. (1991). Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex, 2nd edn. Rev., ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry M. Levin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levin, H.M. Worker Democracy and Worker Productivity. Soc Just Res 19, 109–121 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0002-z

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0002-z

Key Words

Navigation