Is democracy in the workplace, leading to mediocrity at the workplace?

[Willem Fick]

I work for a business consulting house, as a process and architecture specialist. Over the last few years I have been getting progressively more frustrated by people with no actual knowledge or experience, having their views forced onto me through this nasty trend where teamwork in the workplace is the new "zen art".

Sure, I am a "team player" but I work alone, as I am not one of those people who enjoys carrying the weak, something which I strongly believe teamwork fosters, especially in a consulting environment!

I have strong international experience, and am respected widely for innovations in my field, yet I am becoming very frustrated at the mediocrity of many solutions delivered to clients, brought about by the fact that we are forever incorporating some idiot colleague's ideas, just for the fear of being branded a "non-team player" or "difficult" by my superiors.

Am I alone in this?

[frogger]

Democracy in the workplace? Never heard of it.

[LeRoux Strydom]

Whose name is on the product? If you are the team leader, you are carrying the can for the product. Your first responsibility it to ensure the client gets the product they asked for, since they pay the bills which reward the shareholders & owners.

The owners & shareholders of any business call the shots, not every team member.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Sounds like your company is suffering from a case of corporate bureaucracy and H.R.-inspired "sensitivity training" B.S. that gets in the way of actual work getting done. Time for a shake-up.

In most offices where I've worked (architectural), there is a time for collaboration and soliciting ideas of the staff and a time for a team leader to make a decision which goes to the client. I do this almost daily.

The traditional model, when confronted with a design problem, is to have people internally work out various schemes, parti sketches, etc. and then have a review or "pin up" internally, at which time the merits and problems with the various ideas are examined and discussed. This typically leads to a more refined design and a team leader usually needs to then step up and say "ok, this is what we're doing. . ." and get everyone off preparing the drawings necessary to communicate the idea to the client.

A lot of times, the "accord" is reached with minimal input by the team leader. Other times, it's necessary to take a pretty hard-nosed approach because of people "falling in love with" their own design ideas. If you left things to "democracy", you'd end up with a room full of squabbling designers all off doing their own thing endlessly with no cohesion between them and nothing ever getting done for the client, who's ultimately paying the bills and expecting a result. As such, sometimes one has to step up and say "ok, this is what it's going to be guys. . ."

People in the architectural profession have been trained (or should have been) to accept criticism and to realize their ideas will not always be accepted. As such, I have little use for the "modern" H.R.-driven B.S. about "hurting people's feelings" and "fostering team relationships" and all that. Architects are independent-minded people by nature and only need to function as a "team" necessary to accomplish very specific tasks. On a lot of smaller jobs, there may be "teams" consisting of one or two people. Only on very large jobs must there be large teams and therefore the necessity for strict controls and chain-of-command/decision-making.

It sounds to me like your company has a clear business model for failure. I'd be wary. At the very least I'd ensure that:

1. Design ideas have a clear timetable for completion/review and one individual (team leader, partner, principal, associate, whoever) who makes the decision at the end of the timetable what's going to be done - and does it.

2. NOTHING goes to the client without senior staff review. If junior guys are sending 50 different ideas to the client, it's only going to create confusion, lack of focus and come off like your firm can't get out of its own way. As a client, if I started getting 50 e-mails a day from who-knows-who within my architect's firm, I'd wonder what the hell was going on. I want ONE or TWO ideas to choose from and to possibly have a discussion with senior staff about how to proceed. Not fifty.

3. Get rid of the procedural/H.R. crap. It serves nobody in this profession and only gets in the way. If a particular policy in the office isn't helping work get done or helping quality of product increase, it's in the way and generally speaking, needs to go. Lean and mean survives in this business. Fat, slow, bureaucratic and stupid will very quickly die.

4. Choose words carefully in reviews internally. If criticism is needed, give it. If praise is warranted, give it. Don't worry about "hurting people's feelings". This is not a free license to be unnecessarily harsh or mean-spirited, but if an up-and-coming person in the architectural profession can't take honest, constructive criticism without getting upset or bent out of shape, they have no business staying in it. This should be identified early so that such people can be identified and either given a "come to Jesus" talk or reality check and if it persists, let go. They're of little use to a design firm, frankly and get in the way of work actually getting done.

Just my $0.02 as someone who's been in/around this business for 10+ years. Hope it's of some use.

If you're in a position to shake things up in your company - I'd say it's time to do it. If not, I'd say it's probably time to start looking elsewhere. The business model of your firm as described will likely not last too long.

[sammyg2]

Yes. Yes it is.
Teamwork is a substitute for a competent leader.

[stevepaa]

Originally Posted by frogger

Democracy in the workplace? Never heard of it.

+1

sure there is "value your workers opinions ", but in the end what you send to the customer has to be the best your company can deliver.

[legion]

Teamwork works well when everyone is equally committed and motivated--for certain tasks.

Ultimately there has to be a leader, a decider, to make tough calls, cut off useless discussion, and keep everyone focused on the goal (instead of the task at hand).

I'm trying to work into a leadership position in my company, but I'm also trying to learn from the good and bad leaders around me alike.