I first met Dominic via Twitter and then via Xing. In the course of our dialogue we began to deal with the current and pressing topic of “New Work”. In this context, Dominic wrote my last book “All Power for Nobody. Awakening of the Corporate Democrats “read and today he publishes the review here. In order for all of us to be successful in facing the challenges of a social transformation towards more participation, including in the world of work, closely interlinked cooperation and ongoing dialogue about the risks and opportunities of democratic work design are required. Today’s review is a step more in this direction, which I fully support and which of course delights me. You, dear readers, have fun with the following review.
Dr. Andreas Zeuch (* 1968) accompanies companies as a consultant, trainer and speaker on their way to more participation and corporate democracy. In addition to his books, Zeuch has published around 70 articles in specialist journals to date.

Democracy in Business?

“In our private life it is the rule to shape our own life. In contrast, most of the companies in the company have become accustomed to handing over their independent thinking and acting at the gate.” This is how the teaser for the book begins: All Power for Nobody by Dr. Andreas Zeuch. But what advantages can corporate democracy offer? After the feasibility of Democracy in companies has been examined, the potential of democracy will now be examined. For this purpose I have the publications of Dr. Andreas Zeuch identifies and gives a brief insight into his considerations.

Companies are challenged!

Why are companies challenged? What new events require us to include approaches such as democracy and the like in our considerations? Zeuch sees the business environment as the motivation for the idea of corporate democracy, which is much more dynamic and complex than ever before. Second, he lists the demands of Generation Y on employers. This means that, according to Zeuch, the following challenges arise:

• Decisions have to be made faster and more directly
• Innovations determine the future viability
• Leadership must create a framework in which inner motivation can develop freely.
• Co-determination and participation must be given in companies

Companies to have a say!

Zeuch criticizes the fact that formal hierarchies do not make decisions where they are necessary. Zeuch also claims in his book that decisions in democratic companies are faster and better. He therefore claims that a democratic decision is even faster and thus invalidates a prejudice against democracy. His consideration is as follows: Although it takes longer to find this decision, in contrast to a formal decision, it does not have to be communicated in an elaborate manner and everyone involved has to be “picked up and convinced”. Zeuch makes it clear that the implementation of joint decisions is more efficient and effective than lonely topdown decisions.
He also criticizes formal innovation management and “command and control” mechanisms. According to Zeuch, a particularly large number of ideas arise where employees are allowed to develop new products and prototype on their own, at least up to a certain budget. Bureaucratic corporations solve the innovation dilemma by either buying start-ups or starting up.

However, if employees are constantly being told what they have to do and what not to do, this will in the long run neither promote their creativity nor the will to contribute new ideas (Andreas Zeuch).

Does corporate democracy make companies more agile?

In summary, Zeuch sees the following problem: “Often there is also a lack of the necessary trust, instead there is a climate of mistrust, control and punishment”. Corporate democracy is supposed to change this dilemma. He wants employees to participate directly in the company through democracy and sees this as an opportunity to outsource management of the company directly to the interfaces between the market and customers.

The more people are involved in decisions, the more perspectives flow into it (Andreas Zeuch)

But when are companies actually democratic? How democratic does a company have to be in order to achieve the effects already mentioned? Zeuch divides democratic companies into 3 levels of maturity.
Weakly democratic are companies that allow their workforce to co-determine operational decisions, i.e. their own work.
Moderately democratic are companies that have a say in tactical decisions. These are decisions that go beyond your own work area and have a wider scope, such as hiring staff.
Strongly democratic are companies when, in addition to operational and tactical decisions, strategic decisions, i.e. fundamental, existential questions, are also determined by the employees.
So the possible effects occur with increasing democratization. Zeuch limits the fact that democracy does not automatically have to mean the end of hierarchy and leadership. So there can be managers who have been elected by the workforce for a limited period of time. I had a brief dialogue with Andreas Zeuch on this point and he made it clear that there MUST be leadership and that hierarchies are automatically set up if you try to abolish them. His key message is the distinction between formal, fixed hierarchies and dynamic leadership. On the other hand, executive elections are just one variety, according to Zeuch. There can also be rotating systems, or employees can propose themselves as managers and are then accepted – but do not always have to be formally elected.
Overall, Andreas Zeuch’s considerations and arguments promote the agile principles of research in modern and sustainable companies. The core of the book is made up of many case studies and interviews on the subject of corporate democracy. So it shows that Zeuch’s considerations apply and can offer companies added value. In addition to the round tables, a Bachelor thesis on this topic .
[werbung] Verwendete Quellen anzeigen

Der Beitrag Is corporate democracy agile? Foreword by Dr. Andreas Zeuch erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

The sociocratic enterprise and sociocracy

Sociocracy (Latin: socius: companion and kratein: to govern) assumes that all parties involved are the same when it comes to managing decisions in a company. A decision is made as soon as there is no longer any serious counter-argument. The method therefore requires self-motivation, a cooperative togetherness and personal responsibility. In accordance with the Management Y principle, it also aims to ensure that employees “feel good” and therefore strive for self-realization in the company. Management X means that a person basically strives for an aversion to work and a manager has to force him to work. Management Y, on the other hand, says that work is a high priority for employees and is an important source of complacency.
Take a look at the book Management Y from Brandes . There I also used all the information for this paragraph and it is currently the most widespread approach, which is based on the human striving for self-realization and is based on sociocracy. Also read mine for more information Article on Management Y and sociocracy.

The holocracy company and holacracy

I have Holocracy already explained in another article. For this reason, I would just like to briefly summarize what holocracy could be according to current literature: Holocracy is a decision-making practice that allows in complex interconnected functional units (holons or circles) to govern oneself by serving the purpose of the company.
The differences to sociocracy are not so easy to see. But to put it simply: Holacracy appears to be more structured. Roles are precisely assigned through the individual circles and thus the individuals (egos) are separated from each other. With sociocracy, all of these points are optional. So the big difference really lies in the somewhat stronger structure of Holacracy versus Sociocracy. For comparison: Holacracy is a new framework that offers certification through an umbrella organization. Sociocracy has been around for over 40 years and does not include official certification. Take a look at that Book by Robertson or read You my article too Holocracy .

The democratic company and democracy

The approach of democracy in companies first of all represents the questions: Who leads me, who represents me and how am I involved in the company? Here, too, experiments are carried out with the “time” factor in leadership. The second topic is self-determination: where do I work, when and with whom? So it’s about more say for employees and fairness of opportunities. According to the author of the book “Democratic Companies”, it is a matter of fulfilling the wishes of employees in developing the strategy of their company and letting them decide on their own work situation. So it puts the group decisions in the foreground. The goal is not to get a majority decision, according to the author, but to change the positions of the group members so that their voices unite to form the critical mass of an option. For more information and the sources for this paragraph, take a look at the book democratic companies by Sattelberger et al. , which deals intensively with democracy in companies. A separate one Article on corporate democracy can also be found on the blog.

Is that agile and evolutionary?

We quickly notice that all models are still very abstract and have not yet been tested in implementation. All 3 models are different from the basic idea. In the course of the research I will do case studies in all 3 forms and examine exactly whether these forms are really agile and evolutionary and whether these models have advanced companies and how they are changing companies. All 3 models have the involvement of employees as a high goal.
[werbung] Verwendete Quellen anzeigen

Der Beitrag Sustainability of companies? Sociocracy, Holacracy or Democracy? erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.

How realistic is democracy in companies?

The authors of the book first assessed the feasibility of democracy in companies and came to the conclusion that this form appears attractive and realistic. The study was carried out among 1,000 employees. However, there is strong interest in this rather young idea (democracy in companies).

What is preventing companies from doing this?

On the basis of the survey, the author now turns to the possible obstacles for democratic companies. The top barriers, according to this study, seem to be: transparency, equity participation, and choice. Of course, the result is on the one hand logical, since classic companies and societies such as the AG are simply not made for democratically electing superiors. According to the author, a fundamental structural change is necessary here.

How do democratic companies “live”?

Many companies are already considering what such a democracy could look like. A thesis that is often given in various sources is: “Digital technologies facilitate co-determination”. Can the future look like this: employees choose managers, vote on new products, decide on working hours and customers? This topic is currently still highly controversial and offers space for further research. The fact is, however, that the current generation seems to have “no fancy” for outside control and, thanks to digital technologies, coordination processes are now also easy. The CEO of Microsoft Germany said: “We used to look for employees who do what we say, today we are looking for employees who do what we don’t say.” He sees this as a success factor, as decisions are often made too slowly. However, it remains open how and whether this type of democracy can contribute to the sustainability of companies. We are still at the beginning of our research and it will be exciting to see what findings will emerge.
[werbung] Verwendete Quellen anzeigen

Der Beitrag Democratic Corporations – Is That Realistic? erschien zuerst auf agile Companies.