Democracy in the Workplace: Theory and Practice from the Perspective of Communication by George Cheney

George was involved in an effort a few years ago to put together a directory of worker cooperatives, and in this essay he provides insight into the balance between the individual and the collective, and why larger organizations are a completely different animal than the small collective. I must disclaim that I am only reproducing a very small portion that does not necessarily reflect the overall focus of his essay, which is reprinted from Journal of Applied Communications Research, August 1995 pp 167-200. George is a professor in the Department of Communication Studies of the University of Montana at Missoula.

"(W)orkplace democracy is defined broadly as a system of governance which truly values individual goals and feelings...as well as typically organizational objectives...which actively fosters the connection between those two sets of concerns by encouraging individual contributions to important organizational choices, and which allows for the ongoing modification of the organization's activities and policies by the group. Thus, I work from the perspective that sees merit in preserving some of the Enlightenment celebration of individual rights and responsibilities but within the context of collective pursuits...there ought to be substantial, though not complete, overlap between individual and collective pursuits..."

"(A) higher goal, such as pursuit of the common good, necessarily brings together concerns for the individual person as well as for the social body. Nevertheless, there is a danger in subsuming individual rights and responsibilities within even the most noble and progressive collectivist vision." [from a footnote to the above passage]

"The temptation and indeed the necessity with growth is to form committees and subgroups to do at least some of the business of the organization. The simple constraints on talk time in a large group mean that it is impossible for every member to participate fully. The simple formula n(n-1)/2, where 'n' indicates the number of persons in the social system, reveals the number of possible dyadic or two-person linkages. Thus with a group of five persons, the number of possible linkages is 10, but for a group of 10, the number jumps to 45. In addition, limitations of human cognitive-processing capacity make it difficult for an individual to keep track of a great number of relationships simultaneously...the intense, face-to face interaction required by real, direct democratic participation cannot be maintained in something larger than what we call a small group...This reality is understood deeply by all who have observed the growth of an organization beyond its few initial members."