Over the years, participative democracy has been thought of as the ideal decision making style in the organizational setting. On the contrary, this style of decision making has no place in the contemporary business practice (Cumbers & Mcmaster 2012). The major reason why democratic decision making is not ideal is the fact that it undermines successful management. Democracy, in its raw sense means majority rule. The word was coined in ancient Greece and was used mostly in a political sense to refer to a style of leadership where one rose to power by virtue of being selected by the majority through voting processes. In the management sense however, democratic decision making is the process through which the manager surrenders all the decision making power to employees who make decisions through the casting of votes (Briscoe 2012). The employees are given the options and vote without any form of influence from the management. This paper focuses on the setbacks that democratic decision-making can have on successful management.
Successful management is said to have been achieved when the roles entrusted on the stewards of the shareholders, who are the managers, have been accomplished up to and beyond the expectations of the shareholders as well as the general public (Davis 1995). Among the major roles of management is decision making. Making of strategic decisions defines the long-0term direction of the company. However, operational decision making affects the company in the short and middle term. Strategic decisions are usually technical in nature. Such decisions embrace such business deals as mergers and takeovers. Subjecting such decisions to democracy is a total compromise of the future of the business. Clearly, such decisions call for serious expertise and technical know-how.
One of the ways through which democratic decision-making undermines successful management is through the use of unskilled brains to make decisions and judgments (Seethamraju, 2012). For instance, it is common knowledge that the average employee does not have complete knowledge of the goals, objectives and mission of the organization. This implies that the employee will select an option which he or she does not clearly understand. They usually do not know how such decisions are likely to impact on the goals and objectives of the organization. The managers who have a clear understanding of the mission and vision of the organization are left out of the decision making process. This has caused failure since the employee is less concerned about the outcome of the decision on the organization’s side.
Another factor that explains the manner in which the democratic system may be a hindrance to successful management is the fact that the average employee is resistant to change. The employees fear change and will not be willing to select that decision that is likely to bring change to the systems that are currently in place (Jorge & Marques 2012). Such rigidity and fear among the employees causes them to go for those options that are not likely to change the current procedures. They will instead vote for the option that will favor tendencies of laxity and laziness. This will in turn slow down the productivity of the organization for which the manager will be held accountable.
Usually, it is recommended that in making decisions, the managers employ a distant evaluation horizon (Hora 2012). This is to say that decisions should focus on the long term direction of the company. Such decisions are those that typically appear distasteful in the introductory stages but yield overwhelmingly positive results after the implementation stage that may take years. A good example here is the use of advanced technology in the firm. Technology may seem as undesirable to the average worker during the time of its introduction. This is mainly because the employees fear the unknown. With time though, the employee gets familiarized with the use of such technological advancements. They use the machines effectively, and as a result, the productivity of the organization gets better. In a democratic process, this will not take place for the employees will resist the introduction of the machines at the very first instant.
The employees look at the short term effects of a decision and ignore the long-term implications. This is because the only connection between them and the organization are purely the employment connection. There is nothing much beyond the employment contract. This is the reason why the employees will always employ a short-distance decision evaluation horizon (Figen et al 2003). Additionally, the employees, if left with the ultimate decision making power, are likely to subordinate the organizational interest to individual desires. This will cause a serious downfall of the company since the individual interests of the employees is less work for more pay. This will have serious negative impacts on the going concern concept of the firm. The principles of management state that at all times, the employee and the manager should subordinate individual interests to organizational interest.
Among the fundamental principles of management, is the principle of authority and responsibility. This principle basically refers to the fact that the managers, being the decision making authority shall be held accountable for the decisions taken and associated consequences (Esaiasson et al 2012). Typically, if the decision made by a manager yields unexpected results, the same manager is called upon to explain the negative variance. It will be very difficult to hold the whole workforce responsible for poor results. For instance, it is not easy to tell which employee voted for a particular decision. Where the majority selects decision A, for instance and minority vote for option B. decision A will be implemented. In the event that decision A backfires, no employee will admit having voted for decision A. This way, no one will be held responsible and accountable. Such ambiguities undermine effective management.
Successful management entails contingency planning and effective making of decisions in emergency situations (De Fine Licht 2012). Quick decisions can be made effectively when the decision making body comprises of a few knowledgeable and experienced people or one individual with proficiency in the particular field. Engaging the whole work force means that processing urgent decisions will be difficult since the number of people involved is high and the chances that quality decisions are minimal. Summoning the whole staff to make an emergency decision is time consuming and may cause unforeseen disturbances. To save time and resources, the autocratic style of decision making is recommended.
The fact that democratic decision making entails the total surrender of the decision making powers of the manager renders the leader irrelevant (Christian et al 1996). This is because the basic role of a leader is to influence the conduct of others to suit that which he deems right and necessary. Directing is a role of the managers. In the democratic decision-making system, a manager is not given the capacity to direct the workforce. This minimizes the chances of there being efficient decision making. In conclusion, it is of significance to note that the democratic style of decision making is one that does not consider the expertise and technical know-how. The style ignores knowledge in favor of the majority. According to the gurus of change management, majority can mean all wrongs on one side. As such, democratic decision making undermines successful management.
Reference list
Andrew Cumbers & Robert Mcmaster, 2012, "Rethinking Public Ownership and Participation", On the Horizon, Vol. 20 Issue: 3 Pp. 172 - 181
Briscoe, F. M. 2012. Anarchist, Neoliberal, & Democratic Decision-Making: Deepening the Joy in Learning and Teaching. Educational Studies. Vol. 48 Issue 1, P76-102
Christian N. M., Aheto, J., Chu-Hua K. & Dena W. 1996,"Adoption of Strategic Total Quality Management Philosophies Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Model", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 13 Issue: 3 Pp. 57 - 72
De Fine Licht, J. 2012. Do We Really Want To Know? The Potentially Negative Effect of Transparency in Decision Making On Perceived Legitimacy. Scandinavian Political Studies. Vol. 34 Issue 3, P183-201
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M. & Persson, M. 2012. Which Decision-Making Arrangements Generate The Strongest Legitimacy Beliefs? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment. European Journal of Political Research. Vol. 51 Issue 6, P785-808
Figen C., Umit S. B. & Jillian M., 2003, "A Business Process Approach To Human Resource Management", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 Issue: 2 Pp. 190 - 207
Hora, M. T. 2012. Organizational Factors and Instructional Decision-Making: A Cognitive Perspective. Review of Higher Education. Vol. 35 Issue 2, P207-235.
Jorge, P. E. & Marques, P. A. 2012. M. Decision-Making in Pigeon Flocks: A Democratic View of Leadership. Journal of Experimental Biology. Vol. 125 Issue 14, p2414-2417
Ravi Seethamraju, 2012, "Business Process Management: A Missing Link in Business Education", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18 Issue: 3 Pp. 532 – 547
Richard Davis, 1995, "New Principles for Management Development", Management Development Review, Vol. 8 Issue: 6 Pp. 5 - 8
