This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 12 October 2014, At: 09:32Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Peace Review: A Journal ofSocial JusticePublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cper20

Workplace Democracy atCollege of the MainlandDavid Michael SmithPublished online: 19 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: David Michael Smith (2000) Workplace Democracy at Collegeof the Mainland, Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 12:2, 257-262, DOI:10.1080/10402650050057924

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402650050057924

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 09:

32 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Peace Review 12:2 (2000), 257–262

Workplace Democracy at College of the

Mainland

David Michael Smith

For more than a century, workplace democracy has been envisioned as essentialfor a truly democratic and egalitarian society. Democratic socialists have longheld that full and effective participation of workers in the decisions made in theirworkplaces is indispensable for overcoming alienation, encouraging participatorydemocracy and promoting radical social change. Although workplace democracyhas been relatively rare in both capitalist and socialist societies, some well-knownexamples of workers’ control or workers’ self-management have been developed.We can readily recall the Mondragon manufacturing cooperatives in the BasqueCountry of Spain, the industrial enterprises of socialist Yugoslavia, the workplacedemocracy programs in Sweden and Norway, the rural kibbutzim of Israel, andthe Paci� c Northwest plywood producer cooperatives of the United States, asexamples. The development of workplace democracy at College of the Mainlandidenti� es signi� cant achievements in organizing an academic setting, as well asthe main problems associated with doing so. These achievements af� rm thepotential of workplace democracy and reveal the enormous dif� culties inherentin trying to develop workplace democracy in a society whose predominantinstitutions and culture are far from truly democratic and egalitarian.

Experiments in workplace democracy in higher education are both unusualand generally unreported in scholarly literature, even with the move

toward shared governance. Therefore, the experience of workplace democracyat College of the Mainland in Texas City, Texas provides an informativeand interesting case study that warrants consideration by scholars and advocatesof workers’ self-management. The College may be the most democraticallygoverned and participatory institution of higher education in the United States.

This public, comprehensive community college provides academic, technical-vocational, and continuing education courses to 3,000 credit students and 14,000non-credit students. Although Texas is a state renowned for its conservatism,College of the Mainland has been a distinctively progressive educational insti-tution since its founding in 1967. Even though workers’ self-management was notinstituted at the College until 1993, a working-class, democratic orientation hascharacterized the College since its inception. The College was created to servelargely working-class students who live in Texas City and four adjacent towns.Texas City is home to one of the nation’s largest petrochemical industrialcomplexes, and the substantial number of unionized industrial workers hashistorically fostered a local political climate that is appreciably less conservative

ISSN 1040-2659 print; 1469-9982 online/00/020257-06 Ó 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 09:

32 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

258 David Michael Smith

than in many other parts of the state. Local union members and progressives,along with members of the African American and Hispanic communities, playedthe leading role in the founding of the College. During the last 30 years, theworking-class orientation of the school has manifested itself not only in anenduring commitment to accessible, affordable, high quality education for localresidents, but also in continuing close ties with labor unions and communities ofcolor. College employee support for local petrochemical workers threatened bycorporate downsizing and efforts to hire non-union labor foreground the activeconcern for workers that exists at the College.

The College was founded upon a democratic conception of its educationalmission and its role in the community. The � rst president was a strong supporterof John Dewey’s views on education and society, and he nurtured an educationalmilieu valuing participation, cooperation, and innovation by faculty, staff, andstudents. He helped foster an enduring appreciation for Dewey’s conviction thateducation must provide skills for work and develop the critical capacities fordetermining how to live so that a society might be transformed in progressiveand democratic directions.

In Texas, community colleges are legally governed by local, democraticallyelected Boards of Trustees, though many are dominated by business owners

and politicians who often fail to represent constituents’ or students’ interests.Fortunately, the College’s Board has continued to support the College Prospec-tus, which embraces a commitment to “the democratic process as a way of life.”For example, the Board declined to renew the contract of the second and thirdpresidents because they had tried to implement a downsizing plan that wouldhave eliminated one of the most progressive departments. The Board hired adepartment chairperson who was committed to the College Prospectus andstrongly supported by many employees to be the fourth president. Local electionsfor the Board of Trustees have, on occasion, become arenas in which competingvisions of the College have been counterposed. Employees committed to thehistoric orientation of the College generally have won impressive support in thecommunity and helped to ensure the election of progressive Board members.

The College’s distinctive working-class, democratic orientation manifests inmany ways. Elected representatives from across campus contexts form effectivedecision-making bodies. The College union, COM-Unity, is an industrial-modelunion for a range of employees and plays a leading role in promulgatingrecommendations on wages, salaries, and bene� ts to the Board of Trustees eachyear. In a conservative state where academic freedom is often threatened bycollege administrators or local politicians, the College stands out as an institutionin which not only instructors but all employees and students have the right toexpress themselves freely without fear of retaliation. This steadfast commitmentto academic freedom promotes an intellectual climate conducive to effectiveeducation and participation, and has made it possible for a small group ofsocialist professors to play an important role in the life of the College during thelast 30 years.

Notwithstanding the College’s impressive progressive orientation and successin providing educational opportunities for working class students, some real

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 09:

32 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Workplace Democracy at College of the Mainland 259

problems became apparent by the early 1990s. A general sense of stagnation haddeveloped at the College, but, because the fourth president of the College wascommitted to improving his own leadership, he sought possible solutions to whathe perceived as a growing crisis at the school. Eventually, he concluded that thefundamental problem was the College’s continuing reliance on its traditional,hierarchical power structure for day-to-day decision making. Although theCollege had long encouraged participation, unfortunately it was also true thatmost employees had little actual power in the normal operation of their divisionsor of� ces.

After protracted discussions the president introduced a signi� cant change inthe management structure of the College—a new management structure basedon self-managing teams. Initially, there was substantial opposition from variousdirections. Conservative employees were afraid that the College would notfunction without traditional bosses. Other employees believed the new systemwas being imposed on them. Radical and progressive employees feared that theCollege was adopting a corporate team management model similar to industrialenterprises where such a model is used to increase productivity, downsize, anddecrease worker militancy, rather than to increase worker empowerment.

Today, six years later, the system of self-managing teams at the College hasevolved into an impressive form of workplace democracy, even if imperfect. Thetraditional, hierarchical authority structure no longer exists, and the College isorganized into democratically self-governing teams, which include instructional,student service, college service, administrative, and special purpose teams. Teamsnot only determine their own goals and objectives, but also make decisionsconcerning implementation, within the parameters of College policy developedby the Senate, the President and the Board of Trustees. Teams reach decisionsthrough consensus whenever possible and through majority vote in other cases.Teams control their own expenditures and are generally responsible for hiringand terminating team members. Team members democratically elect teamleaders, and leadership responsibilities are rotated regularly, usually every year.

State law and educational policy continue to provide the president withsigni� cant formal authority, but he has delegated much of this authority to thesystem of self-managing teams. As a result, he is not a traditional boss; he is asenior colleague with special responsibilities for ensuring the effective functioningof the team structure. He chairs a special team responsible for facilitatingteam-based management. Titles with the word “director” exist but are mislead-ing, since the holders are not unilateral decision makers. Directors are employeeswho have signi� cant technical or legal expertise vital for the successful operationof their respective of� ces; they operate as members of democratic teams.

Self-managing teams have helped transform the College into a democraticworkplace. The College is a tribute to the democratic vision and hard work

of many employees, students, trustees, and members of the community, as wellas to the enduring support of the local labor unions and the African Americanand Hispanic communities. One extraordinary result of the teams has been thedramatic increase in active participation and leadership in College decisionmaking by faculty and staff members. Employees capably and energeticallyparticipate in making decisions, implementing changes, and monitoring progress

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 09:

32 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

260 David Michael Smith

within their own teams. In addition, examples abound of employees providingeffective leadership in other College bodies, special purpose teams, and hiringcommittees. At the College’s most recent convocation, the report on the work ofthe Budget Council was presented by a member of the Maintenance Team. Amember of the Media Services Team plays a leading role on the ContinuousImprovement Council, a body that facilitates improvement in the system ofteam-based management. An administrative assistant from the Social and Behav-ioral Sciences Team founded the College’s Hispanic Organization for LearningAdvancement and initiated a program highlighting the life and work of CesarChavez. An instructor who teaches air conditioning helped bring about dramaticimprovements in the College’s registration process. Along with employees drawnfrom many different teams, students have made outstanding contributions tohiring committees.

A second noteworthy result of workplace democracy at the College has beena general improvement in daily decision making that would be praised byAristotle. Though a strong critic of the Greek city-state version of democracy,Aristotle acknowledged that ordinary people working together could often renderjudgments wiser than those made by even the most capable individuals. Manyemployees at the College believe decisions reached by teams are considered morecarefully, are more appropriate and reliable because they are products ofcollective, democratic processes drawing on the contributions of numerous teammembers. This perception appears to be substantiated not only by the generallysmooth functioning of the team-based management, but also by marked im-provements in instructional, student support, and college support services overthe past several years.

Many faculty and staff members say they are pleased to share in the decisionmaking and to help to determine daily operations. They welcome the eliminationof arbitrary and capricious actions by administrators. The institutionalizedsharing of power through cooperative and democratic means, and the height-ened importance of every individual in the system of self-managing teams appearto signi� cantly diminish alienation among employees. Employees report they aremore interested in their work, more committed to the overall success of theCollege, and more concerned with resolving work-related problems because ofteam-based management. The College encourages the fullest possible develop-ment of its employees. This is in marked contrast to conventionally organizedentities, which view their employees chie� y as economic assets.

While the State of Texas has a well-deserved reputation for being unfriendlyto organized labor, and state law expressly prohibits collective bargaining bypublic employees, the College’s employees have expanded bene� ts and protec-tions through democratic processes. Each year, the employee union consults withits members, develops and submits a set of compensation and bene� t recommen-dations to the College Senate, which generally endorses most, if not all, of them.Subsequently, the Senate presents the recommendations to the Board forapproval. In some cases union representatives appear before the Board to maketheir case. Financial and budgetary constraints sometimes prevent the Boardfrom implementing all recommendations, but employees have generally donewell. Regular wage or salary increases and numerous other bene� ts illustrate this.In addition, the union, the self-managing teams, the president, and the Board of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 09:

32 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

Workplace Democracy at College of the Mainland 261

Trustees have worked together to create a grievance process that effectivelyguarantees due process and equitable treatment to all employees and students.No employee of the College can be summarily � red, and terminations-for-causeare exceedingly rare.

The achievements of workplace democracy at College are, in sum, quiteremarkable. Nonetheless, it must also be acknowledged that some important

problems plague the system of self-managing teams. Although many employeesenthusiastically support workplace democracy at the College, some do not, andpersistent opposition to team-based management should not be dismissed asgroundless. Indeed, a brief review of the criticisms most frequently voiced isinstructive for scholars and advocates of workers’ self-management.

First, some employees appear to support the return of a traditional, hierarchi-cal power structure at the College. Such sentiments are found easily in a societyin which the overwhelming majority of corporations, businesses, and evennon-pro� t enterprises are organized in authoritarian, anti-democratic ways.However, after six years of generally successful experience with workplacedemocracy at the College, it is disturbing to observe that some employees still saythey would prefer to work under traditional bosses using conventional lines ofauthority. Although defenders of workplace democracy at the College oftenconclude that these opponents simply wish to become bosses themselves, moreseems to be involved here. Perhaps some of these opponents suffer from whatErich Fromm called “the fear of freedom.”

Others claim that there is an inadequate level of accountability in team-basedmanagement. Generally, both supporters and opponents believe that most teamsand individuals work in a responsible and accountable way, but it is also widelyacknowledged that there are lingering problems within or between teams that gounresolved. When problems involving employee or team performance, policyimplementation, or personal disputes are not resolved successfully by teams, theyare sometimes not resolved at all. Some pose this as evidence of the need toreturn to more traditional work arrangements, while supporters insist that thereshould be more timely and active intervention by teams and individuals to helpresolve such problems in a democratic way.

Inadequate achievement of racial and ethnic diversity is a related problem atthe College. The student body and employee group re� ect the racial and ethnicdiversity of the area, yet that diversity is not found among the chief administrat-ive of� cers and on some instructional teams. Although the College has along-standing commitment to equal employment opportunity and af� rmativeaction, it is not yet fully realized. Some employees believe this failure is a resultof workplace democracy itself, contending that self-managing teams are less ableto correct this problem without traditional bosses to compel the hiring of morepeople of color. Other employees recognize the problem, but argue it can andshould be resolved by cooperatively and democratically strengthening the com-mitment of all teams to expand the pool of job applicants.

The signi� cant achievements of team-based self-management demonstratethat workplace democracy is not a utopian dream. It has proven to be a

viable institutional arrangement for managing a comprehensive community

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 09:

32 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

014

262 David Michael Smith

college in the interests of the employees, the students, and the community.Success in empowering employees, improving decision making, promoting coop-eration, solidarity and participation on the campus and in the community, andexpanding bene� ts and protections for employees af� rms the potential ofworkplace democracy. The shortcomings in accountability and diversity arelikely to be resolved in the years ahead, since there is a widespread commitmentto do so. Overcoming these shortcomings will come through further enhance-ments in employee participation, which is likely to improve appreciably withexperience.

At the same time, the persistent traditionally conservative attitudes towardauthority, diversity, and the social role of higher education remind us that theCollege is, as one professor observes, “a democratic oasis in an authoritariandesert.” It is necessary, and sobering, to recognize that the transformation of theCollege will not be enough to fundamentally transform other enterprises andinstitutions in Texas. Those committed to the long-term development of demo-cratic socialism would do well to remember that even the most successfulexperiments in workplace democracy cannot substitute for the broader educa-tional, social, and political movements by millions of ordinary people which arenecessary for radical transformation.

RECOMMENDED READINGS

Cunningham, Frank. 1987. Democratic Theory and Socialism. New York: Cambridge.Mandel, Ernest. 1992. Power and Money. London: Verso.Miliband, Ralph. 1995. Socialism for a Skeptical Age. London: Verso.Wood, Ellen Meiksins. 1995. Democracy against Capitalism. New York: Cambridge.

David Michael Smith is an Assistant Professor of the Government, Social and Behavioral SciencesTeam at College of the Mainland. Correspondence: College of the Mainland, 1200 Amburn Road,Texas City, TX 77591, U.S.A. E-mail: dsmith@mail.cc.tx.us

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 09:

32 1

2 O

ctob

er 2

014