Workplace Philosophy as Political Philosophy

I observed recently that many traditionally political concepts had applications in the workplace.  That is, I could think of the workplace as a micro political society, with rulers, laws, economics, and social phenomena.  In thinking about the workplace in such terms, the knowledge related to these concepts could be fruitfully applied to the workplace.  In other words, I could characterize various aspects of the work environment and experience using analogous political concepts, and then apply what I knew about such political concepts to the analogous workplace concept to gain insight.  Make sense?

 

Perhaps this isn't news to you, but I found the comparison to be useful.  Here is an example to show what I mean and how thinking in this way may be helpful.

 

Type of Government = Management and Decision Philosophy

Some of us may jokingly refer to our boss as a "tyrant" and not give the analogy a second thought.  But such jokes contain more truth in them than we often give them credit.  As a consultant, I have worked in many organizations and under many different management styles.  Here are two extremes:

 

Anarchy = The Absent Manager/Decision Maker

I've worked for managers that relied completely on bottom up decision making and allowed for unceasing input and discussion in meetings.  Oftentimes, the manager was unavailable and absent.  Consequently, decisions were rarely made and were not made with authority, unified action, or clear direction.  The manager would swoop in for fire drills (perceived or real) that were often caused by the lack of direction given.  The overall result was that the team experienced chaotic, inefficient, and sluggish behavior in achieving objectives.

 

Tyranny = The Micro Manager/Decision Maker

I have also worked for managers that completely exercised a top down decision making style.  While such leadership was strong and decisive, there was little input or discussion from the ground floor implementers and a general fear of voicing opinions and suggestions. Decisive action often went in the wrong direction.  Employees were fearful and frustrated, feeling undervalued and as though they were always under the gun.

 

History suggests that, as in politics, a middle ground seems to be best.  We can call it a democratic republic style of management and decision making. 

 

Democratic Republic = The Informed Manager/Decision Maker

The ideal manager truly leads.  He or she takes decisive action, but only after soliciting input from those who are responsible for implementing and maintaining business solutions and processes.  Employees feel they are truly heard and respected, knowing that their opinions do matter and are considered as part of any final decision. 

 

This manager trusts his or her direct reports to do their jobs.  Amazing, right?  In fact, this manager backs his or her direct reports in the decisions they make, having set clear expectations and roles for how they are to do their jobs.  The manager empowers his or her direct reports to do their jobs effectively, giving them the resources and authority needed to take action when needed.  Thus, the manager doesn't need to do their job for them.

 

The manager is primarily concerned about setting the general direction of the organization.  He or she only gets involved in the details when unforeseen problems arise or issues are escalated, requiring quick authoritative decision making or a course correction.

 

More details could be added, but you get the general idea.  This manager functions more like a member of congress or a president.  He or she is clearly a leader, but is a leader for the people, for the purposes of the organization and its members.  While not necessarily reflecting current realities, that is how the US government was originally intended to function.  It is a model that has served our country well.  Perhaps it can serve our business organizations well too.

 

There is nothing radical or revolutionary here.  Simply, the observation that a company, an organization, a workplace is a micro society of its own.  Consequently, it can be studied and treated as such by its members, for their good and its success, or their harm and ultimately its failure.