Eric - There's a lot that needs to be re-imagined here. You certainly have the inter-generational chops to carry it out! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and for reaching out to me. Malcolm Salter
Well written & thought-provoking, Malcom - Thank you! My late grandfather, Dr. Bronner, believed in and practiced "constructive capitalism." I'm proud to say that after 3 generations of leadership, "Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps" is still an international leader in constructive capitalism, and corporate social responsiblity. For example, my cousins who are the CEO & President, will never make more than 5 times the salary of our lowest paid, fully vested employee. Why do we as Americans tolerate or support corporations whose CEO's are paid ridiculous salaries, and given "golden parachutes" regardless of ethics or performance -- All while many of their employees have to rely on public welfare programs just to make ends meet? We tolerate corporate welfare and tax evasion for high-paid CEO's while shunning their employees making minimum wage. It's high time we start holding destructive capitalists (and destructive corporations) accountable.
As someone who has been both employee and employer and a lover of Democracy, I found this article interesting and worth exploring. But I also am not sure I fully understand the alignment between a corporation and government. An employee/citizen pays taxes for public services and to pay the salaries of their govt representatives. An employer has the ultimate responsibility of ensuring the company earns enough to pay salaries to the employees. In turn the employees get paid and have free will to leave or to work hard and excel if they so choose. These are obvious points but wanted to mention and hope these nuances get explored.
These are important observations, and I would also add that while company employees have free will to leave their employer (in protest, say, for their perceived welfare being ignored by employers), the personal costs of walking away can be very high where (1) employees have developed firm-specific skills not easily monetized elsewhere and/or (2) where the neighboring labor markets are not flourishing with comparable employment opportunities. In such situations, the risks and costs to employees working in firms where they have no or little voice on matters affecting their personal welfare can be much higher than, for example, the risks and costs for that firm’s investors who can easily and inexpensively defect into a liquid capital market with many other investment opportunities. In such situations, workers clearly bear more undiversifiable risks than capital. I would also add, as I will address in a following column, federal labor law (the government) tends to inhibit in firms organized by labor unions many kinds employee-management forums where employee welfare can be productively discussed! This may a good negative example of what you refer to government-corporation alignment. Many thanks for your comments.
Thanks Malcolm....I'd be interested to pursue your idea about writing on corporate patriotism for The Renovator. What's the process to do so? I know Danielle Allen, but also know she's extremely busy all the time---is there someone editing more "day to day" to approach with some version of the idea you suggested?
I'm very interested in these columns; thank you for writing them. In particular, I'm curious about whether you'll touch on corporate donations to politicians & political parties - it may be less germane than the other topic I'm curious about though. That is whether you touch on employee engagement programs. Larger organizations often have some type of employee engagement program - and as a consultant I have learned a lot about them. In essence, I see these programs has treating employees like the fully agentic people we actually are - and need to be in order to fully participate in democracy. But at work, the justification is that employees who feel fully engaged at work perform better & are less likely to want to quit or change jobs.
Thanks for your comment, Gina. I have addressed corporate and individual campaign contributions in earlier columns. I also give a very detailed example of "employee engagement" earlier in one of my earlier columns describing the creation of the Saturn Corporation with General Motors in the 1980s. Finally, I will return to the role and operation of these "power sharing" forums later in my current series. I will be interested in your reactions. Thanks again.
Hello Malcolm--enjoyed your reflections on the "strange contradiction" of business vs democratic life. If you don't already know the book "A Company of Citizens", that my colleague Josh Ober and I wrote in 2003, you might find of interest. We reflected on a vision of democratic citizenship in the context of corporate organization during an era that business was increasingly becoming more "empowered" and horizontal. https://a.co/d/05OSfBLW
Thank you, Brook, for your note and gentle reminder about your prior work on Athenian democracy and democratic citizenship in corporate organizations (A Company of Citizens). I need to dive back into your work on employee democracy and self-governance within firms and will do so as I complete successive columns in The Renovator. I hope we can stay in touch on this, since our separate visions of what constitutes "democracy-supporting" business organizations may turn out to be quite complementary. Thanks again for reaching out.
I'm of a view that a) renovating democracy is going to call for "civic education" far beyond just strengthening the topic (often narrowly defined) in schools, i.e. also reach many more adults; and b) that workplaces are an untapped opportunity to further some of the latter. When I was younger and working in the corporate world--especially in the 70s-80s--a certain "patriotic spirit" infused many American companies, independent of any discussions of hierarchy vs democratic style corporate organization. I believe that spirit might be recoverable, but too few people are thinking about that--so bravo what you're doing. Also, it's important to remember that hierarchies are not absent from democratic government--as Trump certainly is leveraging to the hilt. But even absent the Trump style, cabinets are inevitably managed hierarchically, as is our military, etc. And so it was even in ancient Athens. The direct citizen democracy co-existed, with no sense of paradox, with generals who led armies hierarchically, and civic officers who during their terms directed other "politically equal" citizens in doing their jobs. The key point is that said democratic leaders were chosen by the citizenry democratically, and rotated in and out of jobs that expected them to get things done efficiently during their tenure. Aristotle reminds us that in a democracy, citizens must learn to be "both ruled and rule."
I look forward to reading more of your work. BTW, If you haven't seen it, you might also enjoy having a look at my own Substack, The Civic Bargain (https://civicbargain.substack.com/)
Hello Brook -- I am mulling over your comment above about the impact of "patriotic spirit" on corporate management and democratic governance. I'm thinking that you should write a piece for either The Renovator or your own Substack on patriotism as a potentially constructive means of building ties among citizens, encouraging engagement in civil life, and sacrificing for the public good – in other words patriotism as a democracy supporting value --- all of this in contrast to a kind of patriotism reflecting an unquestioning devotion to nation (and person) that leads to divisions and a lost willingness to collaborate and cooperate in every day life and within purposeful organizations of all kinds. Just a thought. Best regards.
Agreed. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how this line of thinking, one I follow myself, grounds itself practically in the fact that free political actors and corporate subjects alike are dominated subjects of school administration until their high school graduation. Children I would guess we’d agree are the moral equals of adults. While it’s a stretch for many to think a ten-year-old should be a political equal, when we start to consider high school age youth, some who are indeed political equals outside of school since they are 18 years or older, spending four years in blind obedience, learning to show respect outwardly while feeling inner rebellion and rage, it’s no wonder so many youth don’t see themselves as interested in using the power of their adult political status in the days, weeks, months, and years following graduation. They have grown ignorant of it or worse their environment incapacitated them. I believe corporations know the way to keep employees ignorant of their own true power is to dominate them through adolescence and into young adulthood. I believe this because that is what men in business, small and large, have told me.
This a a very interesting observation, and an application that I have not explored. But the counter-question that comes to mind relates to research and controversies surrounding threshold levels of informed consent. This is not a relevant concern in corporate settings where I have spent many decades. But there are many open questions (and a few answers) realted to the question of how best to make corporations more democracy-supporting. Stay tuned, and thanks for your question/comment.
Interesting. I’ve spent many years at all levels of corporate empires and we struggled with these issues over the years. I don’t think that there is a magic bullet but I’m interested in seeing where you take this. 👍🏻
Eric - There's a lot that needs to be re-imagined here. You certainly have the inter-generational chops to carry it out! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and for reaching out to me. Malcolm Salter
Brook - Can we switch to email at msalter@hbs.edu?
Well written & thought-provoking, Malcom - Thank you! My late grandfather, Dr. Bronner, believed in and practiced "constructive capitalism." I'm proud to say that after 3 generations of leadership, "Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps" is still an international leader in constructive capitalism, and corporate social responsiblity. For example, my cousins who are the CEO & President, will never make more than 5 times the salary of our lowest paid, fully vested employee. Why do we as Americans tolerate or support corporations whose CEO's are paid ridiculous salaries, and given "golden parachutes" regardless of ethics or performance -- All while many of their employees have to rely on public welfare programs just to make ends meet? We tolerate corporate welfare and tax evasion for high-paid CEO's while shunning their employees making minimum wage. It's high time we start holding destructive capitalists (and destructive corporations) accountable.
As someone who has been both employee and employer and a lover of Democracy, I found this article interesting and worth exploring. But I also am not sure I fully understand the alignment between a corporation and government. An employee/citizen pays taxes for public services and to pay the salaries of their govt representatives. An employer has the ultimate responsibility of ensuring the company earns enough to pay salaries to the employees. In turn the employees get paid and have free will to leave or to work hard and excel if they so choose. These are obvious points but wanted to mention and hope these nuances get explored.
These are important observations, and I would also add that while company employees have free will to leave their employer (in protest, say, for their perceived welfare being ignored by employers), the personal costs of walking away can be very high where (1) employees have developed firm-specific skills not easily monetized elsewhere and/or (2) where the neighboring labor markets are not flourishing with comparable employment opportunities. In such situations, the risks and costs to employees working in firms where they have no or little voice on matters affecting their personal welfare can be much higher than, for example, the risks and costs for that firm’s investors who can easily and inexpensively defect into a liquid capital market with many other investment opportunities. In such situations, workers clearly bear more undiversifiable risks than capital. I would also add, as I will address in a following column, federal labor law (the government) tends to inhibit in firms organized by labor unions many kinds employee-management forums where employee welfare can be productively discussed! This may a good negative example of what you refer to government-corporation alignment. Many thanks for your comments.
Thanks Malcolm....I'd be interested to pursue your idea about writing on corporate patriotism for The Renovator. What's the process to do so? I know Danielle Allen, but also know she's extremely busy all the time---is there someone editing more "day to day" to approach with some version of the idea you suggested?
I'm very interested in these columns; thank you for writing them. In particular, I'm curious about whether you'll touch on corporate donations to politicians & political parties - it may be less germane than the other topic I'm curious about though. That is whether you touch on employee engagement programs. Larger organizations often have some type of employee engagement program - and as a consultant I have learned a lot about them. In essence, I see these programs has treating employees like the fully agentic people we actually are - and need to be in order to fully participate in democracy. But at work, the justification is that employees who feel fully engaged at work perform better & are less likely to want to quit or change jobs.
Thanks for your comment, Gina. I have addressed corporate and individual campaign contributions in earlier columns. I also give a very detailed example of "employee engagement" earlier in one of my earlier columns describing the creation of the Saturn Corporation with General Motors in the 1980s. Finally, I will return to the role and operation of these "power sharing" forums later in my current series. I will be interested in your reactions. Thanks again.
Thanks for letting me know! I am new to this community & will have to look for your earlier columns.
Hello Malcolm--enjoyed your reflections on the "strange contradiction" of business vs democratic life. If you don't already know the book "A Company of Citizens", that my colleague Josh Ober and I wrote in 2003, you might find of interest. We reflected on a vision of democratic citizenship in the context of corporate organization during an era that business was increasingly becoming more "empowered" and horizontal. https://a.co/d/05OSfBLW
All best wishes
Thank you, Brook, for your note and gentle reminder about your prior work on Athenian democracy and democratic citizenship in corporate organizations (A Company of Citizens). I need to dive back into your work on employee democracy and self-governance within firms and will do so as I complete successive columns in The Renovator. I hope we can stay in touch on this, since our separate visions of what constitutes "democracy-supporting" business organizations may turn out to be quite complementary. Thanks again for reaching out.
I'm of a view that a) renovating democracy is going to call for "civic education" far beyond just strengthening the topic (often narrowly defined) in schools, i.e. also reach many more adults; and b) that workplaces are an untapped opportunity to further some of the latter. When I was younger and working in the corporate world--especially in the 70s-80s--a certain "patriotic spirit" infused many American companies, independent of any discussions of hierarchy vs democratic style corporate organization. I believe that spirit might be recoverable, but too few people are thinking about that--so bravo what you're doing. Also, it's important to remember that hierarchies are not absent from democratic government--as Trump certainly is leveraging to the hilt. But even absent the Trump style, cabinets are inevitably managed hierarchically, as is our military, etc. And so it was even in ancient Athens. The direct citizen democracy co-existed, with no sense of paradox, with generals who led armies hierarchically, and civic officers who during their terms directed other "politically equal" citizens in doing their jobs. The key point is that said democratic leaders were chosen by the citizenry democratically, and rotated in and out of jobs that expected them to get things done efficiently during their tenure. Aristotle reminds us that in a democracy, citizens must learn to be "both ruled and rule."
I look forward to reading more of your work. BTW, If you haven't seen it, you might also enjoy having a look at my own Substack, The Civic Bargain (https://civicbargain.substack.com/)
Kind regards
Hello Brook -- I am mulling over your comment above about the impact of "patriotic spirit" on corporate management and democratic governance. I'm thinking that you should write a piece for either The Renovator or your own Substack on patriotism as a potentially constructive means of building ties among citizens, encouraging engagement in civil life, and sacrificing for the public good – in other words patriotism as a democracy supporting value --- all of this in contrast to a kind of patriotism reflecting an unquestioning devotion to nation (and person) that leads to divisions and a lost willingness to collaborate and cooperate in every day life and within purposeful organizations of all kinds. Just a thought. Best regards.
Agreed. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how this line of thinking, one I follow myself, grounds itself practically in the fact that free political actors and corporate subjects alike are dominated subjects of school administration until their high school graduation. Children I would guess we’d agree are the moral equals of adults. While it’s a stretch for many to think a ten-year-old should be a political equal, when we start to consider high school age youth, some who are indeed political equals outside of school since they are 18 years or older, spending four years in blind obedience, learning to show respect outwardly while feeling inner rebellion and rage, it’s no wonder so many youth don’t see themselves as interested in using the power of their adult political status in the days, weeks, months, and years following graduation. They have grown ignorant of it or worse their environment incapacitated them. I believe corporations know the way to keep employees ignorant of their own true power is to dominate them through adolescence and into young adulthood. I believe this because that is what men in business, small and large, have told me.
This a a very interesting observation, and an application that I have not explored. But the counter-question that comes to mind relates to research and controversies surrounding threshold levels of informed consent. This is not a relevant concern in corporate settings where I have spent many decades. But there are many open questions (and a few answers) realted to the question of how best to make corporations more democracy-supporting. Stay tuned, and thanks for your question/comment.
Interesting. I’ve spent many years at all levels of corporate empires and we struggled with these issues over the years. I don’t think that there is a magic bullet but I’m interested in seeing where you take this. 👍🏻