We are free at work because we aren't forced to work anywhere in particular. I have had many jobs and it seems those that work and care about the product, themselves, other employees, the customer are marginalized by those who don't care about the product, don't care about themselves, other employees or the customer. While there does need to be a chain of command, if it were more understood that what is good for the employee is good for the employer we wouldn't see the type of gross ineptitude that leads to this idea that people aren't worth enough to live off of for 8 hours a day.
What is good for the company is good for the employee...what is good for the employer is good for the employee...what is good for the employee is good for the customer...what is good for the employee is good for the employer; everyone just gets confused when "good" becomes a tool for some particular part of the equation to claim more intrinsic right to value. The employees shouldn't make as much as the manager, but the manager/owner (if they want to continue to be an employer) shouldn't be buying boats when the employees can't pay regular bills with a 40 hour a week job. We undervalue and degrade those at the bottom of the pile and wonder why we can't get anything done right. It's honestly the most vivid example of insanity that I can see in our modern markets.
I definitely understand what you are saying....I think. Let me know if I was off. You will get animosity if you speak of this in terms people already have mapped out in their heads. Try to break free of the terms that pit communism and capitalism or political ideologies against each other and you might get more free dialogue on the issue...it's my holy grail lol.
So far the best way I have of describing this is by asking, "Are your employees your customers? Are you customers your employees?" Something along those lines so that it illustrates how these divisions are in reality blurred and interdependent.
Edit: I finally got some time to study this a little more. I've been reading into managment styles.
I suppose I'm a supporter of the paternalistic managment style defined there.
This is a similar question I starred a few days ago...it is basically the next evolution of my defining the actual managment process. I know it sounds funny but I ran a big raiding guild on WoW and when I created the culture and environment I did it with one goal...to test Ayn Rand's theory that men flourish under social circumstances devoid of the initiation of coercion. Through example I taught that we all needed each other and there was an economy based on rewards from the successful completion of raids that required as many as 25 people to complete. The paternatlistic comes closest to how I set up the "social laws" that dictated behavior to the group. There does seem to be a huge problem with people becoming dependent upon the leader as is stated in the Wiki link. I also ran across that issue. I was unable to break through the necessity of my own presence to mediate. Those who could, chose not to and those that couldn't...well...they often did try to mediate with a series of irrational steps that would always lead to breakdown of the unit.
I did most of it intuitively and this is allowing me to really start to dig and define my process..thank you for asking this question. It's been really interesting. I also understand now why you used the democratic terminology. The democratic style in my experience doesn't work because there are very few leaders that exist in nature and the coordination of the unit requires strong leadership.
In my personal experience with pulling back leadership and allowing a democratic approach I have always seen a breakdown of the system (not in anyone's self interest) due to a "shutting down"....people just shut down if they are given responsibility they don't know how to handle. It's strong leadership who fascilitates an environment devoid of the intiation of coercion. It's the subtle balance that both intellectually and actually realizes the value of each piece of the puzzle and allows for the mutual benefit of all.
Stephen H, who is on my contacts list can explain a lot of this subtly very well. I think it's been his influence that has gotten most of this out of intuitve knowledge for me, and into rational expression.
Answered By: I am Natasha's complete lack of surprise - 11/13/2010