netrashetty
Netra Shetty
Ubu Productions, Inc., is an independent production company founded in 1981 by television producer Gary David Goldberg. Ubu's notable productions include Family Ties (1982–1989), Brooklyn Bridge (1991–1993) , and Spin City (1996–2002).[1][2]
Ubu co-produced many of its shows with Paramount Television and in later years, DreamWorks Television.
CEO
Simon Cole
Chairman of the Board
Paul Pascoe
Director
Timothy Blackmore
Director
Kelvin Harrison
Sales
John Quinn
Secretary
SH
Finance
JF
Employee Ownership
The ideal type of organization where democracy can work is one that is wholly owned by its employees. In this case, the purpose of the business is precisely to serve the needs of the employees because they are the owners. Naturally, employees, being owners, must have a say in how the business is run. This is no different from a sole proprietorship in principle. The sole owner of a corner grocery store would clearly be the one to call the shots in how that business is run. Large organizations owned by thousands of people, who are also its employees, must similarly be given a say in how the business is managed.
Where Organizational Democracy Cannot Work
The problem with organizational democracy is that most large businesses are owned by shareholders, not by the employees. If we agree that the owners of a business have the primary right to say how the business will be run, then this principle must apply to shareholders for those businesses that are owned by them rather than by employees. In such companies, top executives are representatives of the shareholders. Employees are effectively full time suppliers in such businesses, not owners. To let employees vote on who should be the next chief executive or on strategic decisions would be a violation of the rights of the real owners. This idea would actually violate a fundamental principle of democracy: that we should be free to manage and dispose of our property as we see fit.
Applicable Aspects of Democracy in Business
What is the kernel of useful truth in this idea? How can we reap the benefits of allowing employees to have a greater say in their companies, without the absurdity of trying to set up a full blown democracy? The use of the word “democracy” creates a problem because it implies allowing employees to vote on fundamental issues or on executive selection.
However, it is a great idea to include employees in deciding HOW things should be done. When top management makes a strategic decision, there are often many ways of executing the strategy. In these cases, employees are more likely to buy in to a specific implementation plan if they own it, if they have helped to develop it. But this is simply what has always been called participative decision making or participative management. But making decisions on a participative basis in a team will never be fully democratic because the manager must always reserve the power to overrule any decision made by, or with, employees that is not supportive of shareholder interests or which puts them at risk. The problem with the word “democratic” is that it implies “majority rule” and no business that is owned by shareholders can be run this way.
Encouraging participation in decisions is an excellent tool for employee motivation, but the idea of organizational democracy is untenable and fundamentally confused in the context of shareholder owned businesses.
Ubu co-produced many of its shows with Paramount Television and in later years, DreamWorks Television.
CEO
Simon Cole
Chairman of the Board
Paul Pascoe
Director
Timothy Blackmore
Director
Kelvin Harrison
Sales
John Quinn
Secretary
SH
Finance
JF
Employee Ownership
The ideal type of organization where democracy can work is one that is wholly owned by its employees. In this case, the purpose of the business is precisely to serve the needs of the employees because they are the owners. Naturally, employees, being owners, must have a say in how the business is run. This is no different from a sole proprietorship in principle. The sole owner of a corner grocery store would clearly be the one to call the shots in how that business is run. Large organizations owned by thousands of people, who are also its employees, must similarly be given a say in how the business is managed.
Where Organizational Democracy Cannot Work
The problem with organizational democracy is that most large businesses are owned by shareholders, not by the employees. If we agree that the owners of a business have the primary right to say how the business will be run, then this principle must apply to shareholders for those businesses that are owned by them rather than by employees. In such companies, top executives are representatives of the shareholders. Employees are effectively full time suppliers in such businesses, not owners. To let employees vote on who should be the next chief executive or on strategic decisions would be a violation of the rights of the real owners. This idea would actually violate a fundamental principle of democracy: that we should be free to manage and dispose of our property as we see fit.
Applicable Aspects of Democracy in Business
What is the kernel of useful truth in this idea? How can we reap the benefits of allowing employees to have a greater say in their companies, without the absurdity of trying to set up a full blown democracy? The use of the word “democracy” creates a problem because it implies allowing employees to vote on fundamental issues or on executive selection.
However, it is a great idea to include employees in deciding HOW things should be done. When top management makes a strategic decision, there are often many ways of executing the strategy. In these cases, employees are more likely to buy in to a specific implementation plan if they own it, if they have helped to develop it. But this is simply what has always been called participative decision making or participative management. But making decisions on a participative basis in a team will never be fully democratic because the manager must always reserve the power to overrule any decision made by, or with, employees that is not supportive of shareholder interests or which puts them at risk. The problem with the word “democratic” is that it implies “majority rule” and no business that is owned by shareholders can be run this way.
Encouraging participation in decisions is an excellent tool for employee motivation, but the idea of organizational democracy is untenable and fundamentally confused in the context of shareholder owned businesses.
Last edited: