Social Justice Research

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 109–121 | Cite as

Worker Democracy and Worker Productivity

Article

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.

Key Words

worker democracy productivity morality political participation sharing the gains 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchian, A., and Demsetz, H. (1972). Production information costs, and economic organization. Am. Econ. Rev. 62: 777–795.Google Scholar
  2. Almond, G., and Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  3. Bachrach, P., and Botwinick, A. (1992). A Radical Theory of Participatory Democracy, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman, K. (1967). Worker-Owned Plywood Companies: An Economic Analysis, Washington State University Press, Pullman, WA.Google Scholar
  6. 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.
  7. Bonin, J., and Putterman, L. (2002). Economics of Cooperation and the Labor-Managed Economy, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Cappelli, P., and Neumark, D. (2001). Do “high performance” work practices improve establishment-level outcomes? Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 54: 737–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carnoy, M., and Levin, H. M. (1985). Schooling and Work in the Democratic State, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, A. (2004). A community of ex-cons shows how to bring prisoners back into society. New York Times (January 2).Google Scholar
  13. Cole, G. D. H. (1920). Social Theory, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Dirkswager, E. J. (ed.), (2002). Teachers as Owners, Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
  16. Donahue, A. K. (2004). The influence of management on the cost of fire protection. J. Pol. Anal. Manage. 23: 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fromm, E. (1968). The Revolution of Hope, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Greenberg, E. S., Grunberg, L., and Daniel, K. (1996). Industrial work and political participation: Beyond simple spillover. Pol. Res. Quart. 49: 305–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Jackall, R., and Levin, H. M. (eds.), (1984). Worker Cooperatives in America, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Adm. Rev. 62: 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Levine, D. (1995). Reinventing the workplace, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, K. I., and Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Acad. Manage. J. 29: 727–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nalbantian, H. R. (1987). Incentives, Cooperation, and Risk Sharing: Economic and Psychological Perspectives on Employment Contracts, Rowman & Littlefield, Totowa, NJ.Google Scholar
  33. National Center for Employee Ownership (2004). Employee Ownership and Corporate Performance. Downloaded January 24, 2004. http://www.nceo.org/library/corpperf.html.
  34. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  35. Pencavel, J. (2001). Worker Participation: Lessons from the Worker Co-ops of the Pacific Northwest, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community, Simon Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Rothenberg, S. (2003). Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental management at NUMMI. J. Manage. Stud. 40: 1783–1802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schur, L. (2003). Employment and the creation of an active citizenry. Br. J. Ind. Relat. 42: 751–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, A. (1937). The Wealth of Nations, Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Thomas, H. T., and Logan, C. (1982). Mondragon: An Economic Analysis, George Allen & Unwin, Boston.Google Scholar
  43. Stiglitz, J. (1975). Incentives, risk and information: Notes toward a theory of hierarchy. Bell J. Econ. 6: 553–579.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Weitzman, M., and Kruse, K. (1990). Profit sharing and productivity. In Blinder, A. (ed.), Paying for Productivity, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.William Heard Kilpatrick Professor of Economics and Education, Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew York

Personalised recommendations