The DOI matches its Crossref record.
New Prospects for Organizational Democracy?
Abstract
The joint pursuit of commercial and societal objectives will likely require non-traditional (non-hierarchical) ways of organizing. This chapter discusses the prospects for one promising alternative: “organizational democracy.” This is a flatter form characterized by distributed decision rights, a deliberative culture, and employee ownership. Other alternatives to hierarchy have emphasized individualistic values of autonomy and empowerment. In contrast, organizational democracy emphasizes the collective. Relevant work in political philosophy underlines analogous dimensions including representation, deliberation, and a collective point of view. The last point makes it different from work on solidarity and class or group interest. In multi-objective organizational democracy there are trade-offs and these are negotiated. Representation and deliberation come to the foreground. Unlike in traditional organizations, however, negotiations are not regarded as transaction costs to be minimized; rather they are brought to the foreground and cultivated. The chapter illustrates these ideas and discusses challenges and avenues for future research.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In contrast to constrained, patriarchal top-down managerial models, democratic approaches place far more importance on employees' dignity, extensive information sharing, and participation in decision making.
“In contrast to constrained, patriarchal top-down managerial models, democratic approaches place far more importance on employees' dignity, extensive information sharing, and participation in decision making (Bal & de Jong, 2017;Battilana, Fuerstein, & Lee, 2018).”
From Common Good HRM: A paradigm shift in Sustainable HRM? (2020) · cites this paper as Battilana, Fuerstein, & Lee, 2018
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Common Good HRM: A paradigm shift in Sustainable HRM?
Aust, I., Matthews, B., & Muller-Camen, M. (2020) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100705 · Cited by 531
Metadata
- Authors
- Battilana, J., Fuerstein, M., & Lee, M.
- Venue
- Oxford Scholarship Online
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2018-06-21
- OpenAlex
- W2761898214
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.06
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Cooperative Studies and Economics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Labor Movements and Unions
- Keywords
- organizational democracy, non-hierarchical organization, employee ownership, representation, deliberation, trade-offs, negotiation, transaction costs, solidarity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review