Who put him in charge?

[muckefuck]

Years ago now, I had a co-worker who was an anarchist. Unlike many people who claim that description, he wasn't in the least bit nihilist. Sometimes when we were working together, we'd have rambling discussions of his utopian vision of universal direct democracy and distributed decision-making. I considered it all pretty much pie-in-the-sky, but we did agree on at least on thing: There's got to be a better way to run human institutions than authoritarianism.

Most of my problems with governance seem to stem from the fact that it is so thoroughly authoritarian. In theory, the politicians ultimately answer to the people, but in practice, they often end up with little fiefdoms to be dictators over. The same goes for the civil service most places, which is why we've all had to learn the value of sucking up to the gatekeeper standing between us and what we are entitled to by law. You could say I tend to think this way because I live in a city still governed according to a kind of feudal system, with a postal service that's certified among the worst in the country. But I see the same flaws everywhere, from my workplace to Zimbabwe. There's just too little accountability of those in charge to the people under them in the hierarchy.

What really brought this home tonight was that we have a friend who's being forced out of her job by her weasel of a boss and there's really nothing anyone can do about it. The organisation is set up so that he is the sole employee of the governing board and can hire and fire his direct reports pretty much at will. In theory, he has to account for his actions to the board, but in practice they're volunteers appointed on a rotating basis, so they really have little incentive to police him. The only time they ever got rid of a CEO was when they had one who quite nearly bankrupt the entire organisation; clearly, the current CEO learned from this and keeps the balance sheet glowing.

What's especially annoying is that this is an organisation progressive enough to have upward evaluations; in theory, again, the top level of management can send confidential reports on the big boss' performance directly to the board. In practice, the process is fatally compromised because the CEO also hires the personnel firm that administers it. Right now, it seems the best that we could possibly hope for is that the CEO tries to muddle through without our friend, completely screws up her work (because he really is a dunderhead), and makes a mess so big that the board have to pay attention. That would take another year, at least, during which he'll still be able to run roughshod over the remaining managers.

I remember zompist complaining from time-to-time that we haven't made the same advances in politics that we have in technology. It's true. I try to have confidence in the power of the invisible hand to crush those dinosaurs that still prefer to have all decision-making precede from a walnut-sized organ way up at top, but I really don't see much evidence of it.

Comments

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Moreover, government is still a ways ahead of commerce. People can't seem to grasp the idea that democratized government >> authoritarian government implies democratized company >> authoritarian company.

Though that's partly because unlike democracy vs. authoritarianism in the governmental sphere, the corporate version has yet to win in head-to-head competition. In practice, cooperatives and employee-owned companies have at best a mixed record. (United Airlines was a particularly disappointing example.)

[bwillsouth.livejournal.com]

That could be attributed at least in part to bad starting conditions. Even though Google isn't employee-owned, the whole (relatively) laissez-faire attitude they've taken with research is definitely a case of employees getting autonomy. Add to that voting rights or something analogous...

[lhn.livejournal.com]

I'd guess a lot of them have voting rights-- Google has (I believe) stock options, an employee stock purchase plan, a 401(k)... Whether they'd be better off with voting rights and profit shares that they couldn't sell is another question.

(But corporations are, as a rule, a lot less paternalistic than they used to be when it comes to regulating employee lives. We see less of things like Henry Ford trying to ensure his employees' moral character-- and racial homogeneity-- by running Dearborn as a near-fief.)