The use of fear is an underlying tenet of corporate autocracy which is prevalent and becoming more widespread in modern western businesses. In countries where in every other aspect of peoples lives they demand democracy, a chance to have a say in the decisions made by those in more powerful positions than them, in the corporate world the fear of retrenchment is used to enforce rigid autocratic rule.
A story was told to me recently about a CEO of a major Australian bank who pulled his management team together, he offered them a contract which they had to sign, if they did they would receive 750 bank shares, if they didn’t they were not “on board” (out the door), they all signed. He was obviously trying to get his direct reports to do what he wanted them to do without question or complaint. Did they have a choice? Well at the management level financially they may have been able to survive without a job for a while, but as we move down the levels where the same process is implemented this is less and less likely.
"Ïf you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen” another quote from a manager to his team, this is a threat against peoples very survival, not a choice. In times like these of rising unemployment, scarce jobs, falling house values, if one looses ones income for any length of time they will soon not only be out of a job but out of their home and food as well. And their family along with them. Also the modern workplace has replaced the village as the meeting and social environment, count how many friends you have through work, how many social occasions you have attended with work, the Christmas parties, and collections for the new babies arrival, they are threatening to kick us out of the village every time we are given this choice, with little more than a token for survival.
So this threat is one with true venom, a threat against peoples lives not just livelihoods, and thus autocracy is maintained through all the levels way up to the top where the only decisions are truly made.
Understandably in the levels between board and front line there are administrative decisions made, but these are within very tight parameters, which photocopy paper to use, staff levels for the next week, and so on. These are simply tweaking inside an already set system which is decided by much higher levels.
Is this a bad way to run a company? Well if you believe it’s a bad way to run a society its a bad way to run a company. Don’t people deserve a say in what their company does. A say in how the place they spend the majority of their time is operated. And society as a whole should really be able to have more of a say in how the massive wealth large corporations weild is spent.
Is it possible to change the status quo? Yes! first there must be true choice, in the instances mentioned above both times the employees were given a choice, accept the decision of the ‘leader’or leave, but this is not a choice if one needs the income of the employer to survive, it’s a choice between accept or struggle. And if all or most organisations are operated the same way, there is no choice at all. A decent welfare or safety net allows people to make true intelligent, and ethical choices, if they disagree they should be able to leave and not unduly suffer. Redundancy packages help but they rely on the benevolence of the employer and can often come with conditions, such as gagging, restrictions on trade etc. If we had a standard acceptable level of welfare for all as suggested in the flow tax/ flat welfare model whereby the government collects a small amount from the flow of money around the economy and distributes it evenly to all persons this would go someway to alleviating this simple dilemma of choice.
There are also plenty of models that give the employee a true say in the way the company is run, Ricardo Semler’s SEMCO is a great example of democratic industry. He just doesn’t see the workplace as a separate entity from life, its there to fulfill our needs more than just monetary, we like to be inventive and entrepreneurial, and he can see that people and the company can profit from allowing all those involved the freedom to be so, while giving them full information on the state (finances) of the company itself. And it works.
There are other benefits to having a free questioning group in the company, there are more checks and balances, people feel free to question the actions and decisions of those above. This could have been very handy in the banking industry recently. There’s more innovation and those rising to the highest leadership position may actually be there for standing up for ethical, inventive, different ideas rather than following orders well. For to survive and rise in an autocracy one must kowtow.
True choice is the basis of a good society and a good corporation. That means information, education, both ethical and intellectual, and freedom from punishment be that financial of physical. A more successful corporation and society is one that allows true choice.
PS: Autocrat may not be the best word as most corporations are headed by a board elected by shareholders, but most of their decisions are hamstrung by the necessity for profit.
Also a benevolent owner/CEO or a born to rule (Semler inherited his fathers company) may be the preferred way,this I have no argument with.
Leave Your Comments