Is organizational democracy worth the effort?

Academy of Management Executive

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 49-53

  Harrison, Jeffrey S ^a,b   Freeman, R Edward ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND   (United States)

^b Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 8144223546     PISSN: 10795545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/ame.2004.14776168     Document Type: Review

References (8)

1. These advantages come from our own thinking as well as the articles contained in this forum. See also Collins, D. 1997. The ethical superiority and inevitability of participatory management as an organizational system. Organization Science. 8(5): 489-509; Melman, S. 2001. After capitalism: From managerialism to workplace democracy. New York: Alfred Knopf; Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. 2004. The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6): 740-765.
2. These advantages come from our own thinking as well as the articles contained in this forum. See also Collins, D. 1997. The ethical superiority and inevitability of participatory management as an organizational system. Organization Science. 8(5): 489-509; Melman, S. 2001. After capitalism: From managerialism to workplace democracy. New York: Alfred Knopf; Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. 2004. The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6): 740-765.
3. These advantages come from our own thinking as well as the articles contained in this forum. See also Collins, D. 1997. The ethical superiority and inevitability of participatory management as an organizational system. Organization Science. 8(5): 489-509; Melman, S. 2001. After capitalism: From managerialism to workplace democracy. New York: Alfred Knopf; Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. 2004. The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6): 740-765.
4. This list of disadvantages was heavily influenced by Jeffrey L. Kerr's article in this issue, as well as our own thinking. See also Klagge, J. 1998. The empowerment squeeze-Views from the middle management position. The Journal of Management Development. 17(8): 548; Randolph, W.A. 2000. Re-thinking empowerment: Why is it so hard to achieve? Organizational Dynamics, 29(2): 94-107; Wilkinson, A. 1998. Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personnel Review, 27(1): 40.
5. This list of disadvantages was heavily influenced by Jeffrey L. Kerr's article in this issue, as well as our own thinking. See also Klagge, J. 1998. The empowerment squeeze-Views from the middle management position. The Journal of Management Development. 17(8): 548; Randolph, W.A. 2000. Re-thinking empowerment: Why is it so hard to achieve? Organizational Dynamics, 29(2): 94-107; Wilkinson, A. 1998. Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personnel Review, 27(1): 40.
6. This list of disadvantages was heavily influenced by Jeffrey L. Kerr's article in this issue, as well as our own thinking. See also Klagge, J. 1998. The empowerment squeeze-Views from the middle management position. The Journal of Management Development. 17(8): 548; Randolph, W.A. 2000. Re-thinking empowerment: Why is it so hard to achieve? Organizational Dynamics, 29(2): 94-107; Wilkinson, A. 1998. Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personnel Review, 27(1): 40.
7. Ackoff, R. L. 1994. The democratic corporation: A radical prescription for recreating corporate America and rediscovering success. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Harrison, J. S., & St. John, C. H. 1996. Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. The Academy of Management Executive, 10 (2): 46-60.