The democratic rejection of democracy: Performative failure and the limits of critical performativity in an organizational change project

Abstract

How do we introduce democracy democratically to people who are not sure they want it?' This question was posed to us at the outset of what became a three-year experiment in seeking to implement more democratic organizational practices within a small education charity, World Education. World Education were an organization with a history of anarchist organizing and recent negative experiences of hierarchical managerialism, who wanted to return to a more democratic organizational form. An ideal opportunity, we thought for the type of critical performative intervention called for within Critical Management Studies. Using Participant Action Research, which itself has a democratic ethos, we aimed to democratically bring about workplace democracy, using a range of interventions from interviewing, whole organization visioning workshops through to participating in working groups to bring about democratic change. Yet we failed. World Education members democratically rejected democracy. We reflect on this failure using Jacques Derrida's idea of a constitutive aporia at the heart of democracy, and suggests the need to more carefully unpack the difficult relationship between power and equality when seeking to facilitate more democratic organizational practices. The paper presents an original perspective on the potential for, and limits of, a critical performativity inspired interventions in organizations.

Organizational democracy and employee outcomes: The mediating role of organizational justice

“…This makes the workplace like a symbol of authority, deference, and subordination (Nightingale, ). According to King and Land (), the critical evaluation of 21st‐century organization's management practice must be done on its substantive values, for example, freedom, justice, and equality rather than instrumental maximization.…”

“…This makes the workplace like a symbol of authority, deference, and subordination (Nightingale, 1982). According to King and Land (2018), the critical evaluation of 21st-century organization's management practice must be done on its substantive values, for example, freedom, justice, and equality rather than instrumental maximization. Rahnavard (2001) claimed that the introduction of democratization at the workplace helps in choosing, deploying, and gathering of diversified opinions and distributive control of resources by establishing equality and justice through redistribution of power.…”

Making Organizations More Inclusive: The Work of Belonging

“…Researchers have recently stressed the need for organization studies to attend to alternative organizations, such as cooperatives and social movements (e.g., Haug, 2013; King and Land, 2018;Maeckelbergh, 2011Maeckelbergh, , 2014Reedy et al 2016;Parker et al 2014;Yates, 2015). By engaging with these social actors, Reedy et al (2016Reedy et al ( : 1553 and others suggest, researchers could "extend their understanding of organization and identity in the contemporary world", which may require new approaches (see also, for example, King and Land, 2018;Parker et al, 2014).…”

“…Belonging and inclusiveness are often central concerns for these actors, informing the more collaborative and participative practices that they tend to develop (Parker et al 2014;Reedy et al 2016). Cooperatives and social movements are not free from exclusionary tendencies, which may often resurface and cause internal tensions (King and Land, 2018;Reedy et al 2016;Yates, 2015). However, discussing targets and budgets could exemplify and accentuate the ways in which their members strive to work through their tensions, gradually "establishing connections to the others which cannot possibly be held" in exclusionary forms of organization (Latour, 2005(Latour, : 262, see also 2013(Latour, , 2014a(Latour, , 2016c.…”

“…Instead of feeling helpless, they might plan collective responses with other organizations and groups, potentially gaining energy and enthusiasm through their belonging. Not everyone is willing or able to assert themselves in discussions (Haug, 2013; King and Land, 2018;Maeckelbergh, 2014;Reedy et al 2016). Paradoxically, some members may have to 'lead', or else compel others to 'participate' (Maeckelbergh, 2014;Reedy et al 2016).…”