NationStates Jolt Archive

If democracy is such a good way of running a country (or at least the best way we currently have) why are so few companies or organisations run as democracies? Could a corporation like Microsoft not function if all its workers took part in decision making? Or would it actually produce better software than it currently does?

Microsoft isn't about producing better software, it's about producing better profit. In Microsofts case, the two rarely go together...

Beacuse country=/=business.

Next?

LOL, why don't you learn a little about corporations before you make a fool of yourself by posting bullshit like this. You can vote for board members of any corporation by owning stock in it.

Because a country is not a government that provides services for its employees that said employees pay for in terms of taxes and whatnot.

Of course, if you want to be strict about it, publicly traded companies are in fact mini-democracies, they just don't have a one man, one vote principle but instead have a one share, one vote notion.

dicatorships is so much simpler, and people are stupid.

Democracy isn't as efficient, and companies thrive on efficency. Most governments care about fairness and the happiness of the people instead.

dicatorships is so much simpler, and people are stupid.

Your post pwns itself.

Beacuse country=/=business.

Next?

Well duh...

Of course they aren't the same thing, but they have many similar issues - decisions have to be made
they have to stay solvent
they have to protect themselves from hostile takeover

You've just described a Workers' Co-operative.

Workers' Co-ops are growing in popularity throughout the world, especially in Latin America where a real revolution is taking place in terms of proletarian involvement in the economy.

Well duh...

Of course they aren't the same thing, but they have many similar issues - decisions have to be made
they have to stay solvent
they have to protect themselves from hostile takeover

When was the last time your entire country voted on the national budget?

Businesses do not take each other over in anywhere near the way countries do, your analogy is teh fail.

When was the last time your entire country voted on the national budget?

Businesses do not take each other over in anywhere near the way countries do, your analogy is teh fail.

What I am talking about is the decision making process. As some fool mentions earlier, decisions in corporations are made by the board (although in reality they are largely made by CEO's and just rubber stamped by the board)and shareholders get to vote in who is on the board (although again in reality the results will be swayed by a few large shareholders). The point I am trying to make is that by involving more people who actually work in the organisation in decisions you are likely to get a better decision. I have worked in a number of organisation where pretty much all decisions are made by a few people at the top of the organisation, half the time they haven't even got a clue on what they are making a decision about.

If democracy is such a good way of running a country (or at least the best way we currently have) why are so few companies or organisations run as democracies? Could a corporation like Microsoft not function if all its workers took part in decision making? Or would it actually produce better software than it currently does?

Because democracy is a great way to create order, but a lousy way to produce anything.

What I am talking about is the decision making process. As some fool mentions earlier, decisions in corporations are made by the board (although in reality they are largely made by CEO's and just rubber stamped by the board)and shareholders get to vote in who is on the board (although again in reality the results will be swayed by a few large shareholders). The point I am trying to make is that by involving more people who actually work in the organisation in decisions you are likely to get a better decision. I have worked in a number of organisation where pretty much all decisions are made by a few people at the top of the organisation, half the time they haven't even got a clue on what they are making a decision about.

It might make better decision making, but it would be difficult and time consuming, that and there's the people who aren't fond of giving up power.

If democracy is such a good way of running a country (or at least the best way we currently have) why are so few companies or organisations run as democracies? Could a corporation like Microsoft not function if all its workers took part in decision making? Or would it actually produce better software than it currently does?

There are actually some of us here (including myself) that believe such a model is desirable.

Democracy isn't as efficient, and companies thrive on efficency. Most governments care about fairness and the happiness of the people instead.

Is a dictatorship more efficient in the long run. Most dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Mao made really terrible decisions that were not at all efficient. I don't see that one person running a company is going to be any better than they were.

Is a dictatorship more efficient in the long run. Most dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Mao made really terrible decisions that were not at all efficient. I don't see that one person running a company is going to be any better than they were.

Dictatorship is efficient in a narrow sense, but in a broad sense it is horrendously inefficient. A national dictator is required to take so many factors into effect that it eventually overwhelms the system and causes a total breakdown to occur.

Is a dictatorship more efficient in the long run. Most dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Mao made really terrible decisions that were not at all efficient. I don't see that one person running a company is going to be any better than they were.

Well, it does need to be taken in perspective that most corporations, while heirarchical, do have a distribution of power between different people, and even the uppermost echelon of management is usually accountable to shareholders.

Is a dictatorship more efficient in the long run. Most dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Mao made really terrible decisions that were not at all efficient. I don't see that one person running a company is going to be any better than they were.
Most democracies continually make inefficient decisions without aim or purpose. The dictators in question had purpose and made quite a few very good decisions. Companies thrive on quickly made, good decisions by experts. The big drive for democracy is not on efficiency or quality of decisions, just the lesser likelihood that our government will turn on us. Companies are by far more constrained, they follow the jig of the market relentlessly and because of this we don't have to worry about their coerciveness, so in their case it would be better if decisions were made only to appease the market and made by experts.

If democracy is such a good way of running a country (or at least the best way we currently have) why are so few companies or organisations run as democracies? Could a corporation like Microsoft not function if all its workers took part in decision making? Or would it actually produce better software than it currently does?

Someone just discovered Linux? :)

If democracy is such a good way of running a country (or at least the best way we currently have) why are so few companies or organisations run as democracies? Could a corporation like Microsoft not function if all its workers took part in decision making? Or would it actually produce better software than it currently does?

Microsoft and pretty much all corporations are democratic organizations. Shareholders have a number of votes equal to their shares of common stock. They use these votes to elect the Board of Directors just like citizens vote for representatives in their Government. The Board of Directors then hires management and management typically hires employees. This is similar to the governmental nonelected appointees and civil service employees.

Business management is run by purely economical standards and manufacturing. Social aspects of the company are regulated by the government anyway so voting would be meaningless unless you wanted to improve pay, this is usually done by unions, which are democratic by their nature. The fact that a union exists show that companies are actually quite democratic.

Assuming business and governments are even remotely similar that is.

If democracy is such a good way of running a country (or at least the best way we currently have) why are so few companies or organisations run as democracies? Could a corporation like Microsoft not function if all its workers took part in decision making? Or would it actually produce better software than it currently does?

Because economic democracy is socialism. And the owners of this country don't want socialism, because it ends their reign over humanity.

:sniper: to the person who said about no democracy in companies being bullshit because thats otal un true, in any form of company "democracy" share holders are aloud to make decision becuase it makes them feel they have a say no company fuctions on the basis of democracy or else we'd have cleansers at the top pay scale alonge side the big buisness men which is exactly how it should be besides the majority shareholder will have the biggest say and so there is no real form of democracy accept one similar to that of china;. In comnclusion democracy would be great in the workplace but it just aint gonna happen cu thats not how capitalism opperates.

up yours capitalists
the afghan rebel :mp5:
(14)

Corporations are run like that because central planning works on a small scale, namely on the level of individual companies where the number of production decisions is smaller and the company is more flexible. Central planning works when it's applied at the right level, and individually planned corporations competing in a fairly free market is a pretty optimal environment for that model.

Is a dictatorship more efficient in the long run. Most dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Mao made really terrible decisions that were not at all efficient. I don't see that one person running a company is going to be any better than they were.

Actually all the people you mentioned were greatly efficient for the countries ecconomies, in just a matter of years after hitler taking over germany became a very well developed plkace. All of those dictators may have masacared there people and done some very stuppid things but they never made in efficient decisions e.g Hitler killing millions of jews was hardkly done in efficiently and that is why companies do work because they have informewrs who sugest ieas and one overall boss who makes the final decission usually someone who is a good thinker

Corporations are run like that because central planning works on a small scale, namely on the level of individual companies where the number of production decisions is smaller and the company is more flexible. Central planning works when it's applied at the right level, and individually planned corporations competing in a fairly free market is a pretty optimal environment for that model.

i agree and thus the bigger companies owning smaller companies makes them more money; in esence demorcracy works at low level but you cannot vote for the overall chairmen of n organisation
afghan rebel :mp5:
(14)

Is a dictatorship more efficient in the long run. Most dictators like Hitler, Stalin and Mao made really terrible decisions that were not at all efficient. I don't see that one person running a company is going to be any better than they were.

Corporations are about immediate progress. Countries should be about long term progress.

Because companies that do operate as democracies tnd to go tits up with remarkable alacrity.

However much democracy is alluring, the simple, indis[utable fact is that the common man, woman and voter is an ignorant, self-interested, polutically myopic moron.The "silent majority", who so regularly decide elections", fail to appreciate the intricacies of economics, international politics, or any other sphere of government, yet they are afforded the means to dictate who decides the course of the country. Democracy inevitably precipitates demagoguery; New Labour, and now reformed conservatism, and ultimately emperils the countries it taints.

:sniper: to the person who said about no democracy in companies being bullshit because thats otal un true, in any form of company "democracy" share holders are aloud to make decision becuase it makes them feel they have a say no company fuctions on the basis of democracy or else we'd have cleansers at the top pay scale alonge side the big buisness men which is exactly how it should be besides the majority shareholder will have the biggest say and so there is no real form of democracy accept one similar to that of china;. In comnclusion democracy would be great in the workplace but it just aint gonna happen cu thats not how capitalism opperates.

up yours capitalists
the afghan rebel :mp5:
(14)

Thus, presumably, democracy, in accordance with shareholding protocol and dynamics, ought to allow the rich to buy more votes than the poor?

:sniper: to the person who said about no democracy in companies being bullshit because thats otal un true, in any form of company "democracy" share holders are aloud to make decision becuase it makes them feel they have a say no company fuctions on the basis of democracy or else we'd have cleansers at the top pay scale alonge side the big buisness men which is exactly how it should be besides the majority shareholder will have the biggest say and so there is no real form of democracy accept one similar to that of china;. In comnclusion democracy would be great in the workplace but it just aint gonna happen cu thats not how capitalism opperates.

up yours capitalists
the afghan rebel :mp5:
(14)
Poor spelling and gun smilies. Nice touch nOOb.

LOL, why don't you learn a little about corporations before you make a fool of yourself by posting bullshit like this. You can vote for board members of any corporation by owning stock in it.

That hardly makes it a democracy, more a plutocracy or oligarchy

If democracy is such a good way of running a country (or at least the best way we currently have) why are so few companies or organisations run as democracies? Could a corporation like Microsoft not function if all its workers took part in decision making? Or would it actually produce better software than it currently does?

In some ways they are... Whenever a publicly traded company wants to perform a merger or the like, and the person suggesting it doesn't have a controlling stake, it has to get a majority of share holders to agree to it.