Should management be elected by the workers. Aren’t they the most qualified to judge who is the most competent?
Nope. That’s precisely why corporations are generally much more efficient than governments.
You have to remember that when you work for a corporation, you’re not part of a society, you don’t have rights granted to you from that corporation, you’re a commodity. You’re there to be exploited. The only democratic thing that happens is shareholder’s meetings.
Managers have a certain skillset and level of experience that is requires to effectively run a corporation, that’s why they get hired.
As an analogy, imagine what would happen if the privates in the army got to elect their commanding officers. Sheesh.
friedo said:
This was actually done at one time, all the way up to regimental commanders (I think), at least into the Civil War.
As for electing management, it wouldn’t work–inevitably, it would produce an environment in which the successful candidates would be the ones who promised more money and less work. The investors who provide the capital for business would rightly decline to have any part of it–it would be a surefire way to not make profits, and profits are the reason people invest to begin with.
Managers are unpopular among the workers for a reason. The managers are in a position of some authority and some responsibility. And the people in authority are NEVER popular with the people over whom it is exercised.
Which isn’t to say that the least popular managers are the best.
The worker wants more money for less work, naturally. The manager tries to get the worker to work as hard as possible (most bang for your buck). They are almost natural enemies in the workplace.
Which is why Dilbert is so popular.