In "Private Government," Elizabeth Anderson challenges our conventional understanding of modern workplaces and employment relationships. She argues that most companies today operate as authoritarian private governments that wield immense power over employees' lives, both on and off the job. This provocative thesis forces us to reconsider our assumptions about freedom, democracy, and power in the context of work.
Anderson, a professor of philosophy and women's studies at the University of Michigan, brings a unique perspective to this topic. She combines insights from political philosophy, economics, and history to shed light on the often-overlooked tyranny that exists within many workplaces. Her goal is to spark a conversation about how we can make work more democratic and aligned with our ideals of personal liberty.
This book summary will explore Anderson's key arguments and insights, examining how modern employment came to be structured as it is, why this arrangement is problematic, and what alternatives might exist. We'll delve into the historical context, unpack analogies between workplace governance and political systems, and consider potential solutions to create more equitable and democratic workplaces.
The Authoritarian Nature of Modern Workplaces
The Workplace as a Communist Dictatorship
Anderson begins with a striking analogy: imagine living under a government that organizes society into a rigid hierarchy. At the top sits an unelected dictator with nearly absolute power. Below them, a small group of unelected "superiors" can issue commands to anyone beneath them. At the bottom are the masses of "inferiors" who must obey without question.
This may sound like a description of an authoritarian regime, but Anderson argues it's an apt characterization of most modern workplaces. The CEO is the unelected dictator, managers are the superiors, and rank-and-file employees are the inferiors who must comply or risk losing their livelihoods.
Anderson goes further, suggesting we can even call this system a "communist dictatorship." The corporate government owns and controls all the means of production. A small elite makes big decisions and creates detailed plans for what workers should produce and how. There's extensive surveillance and monitoring of workers to ensure compliance.
While this analogy may seem extreme, Anderson's point is to highlight just how much authority and control employers have over their employees' lives. Most of us take this arrangement for granted, but when examined closely, it bears a striking resemblance to political systems we'd consider deeply undemocratic.
The Extent of Employer Power
Anderson acknowledges some limitations on employer power but argues that within broad boundaries, employers have far-reaching authority over workers' lives. Some key points:
- In the US, most employees work "at-will," meaning they can be fired for almost any reason not explicitly prohibited by law.
- Employers can often dictate how employees dress, speak, and even style their hair.
- Many companies monitor employees' emails, phone calls, and social media activity.
- Some employers pressure workers to support certain political candidates or causes.
- Companies can impose "wellness programs" that dictate diet and exercise habits.
- Low-wage workers often face particularly harsh conditions, like being denied bathroom breaks.
The scope of employer power extends far beyond simply directing work tasks. Anderson argues it amounts to a form of private government that can regulate many aspects of employees' lives both on and off the job.
Limited Worker Recourse
Defenders of the current system might argue that workers who don't like their conditions can simply quit. But Anderson points out several factors that constrain this "freedom to exit":
- Jobs are often scarce, especially in economic downturns or depressed regions.
- Quitting means losing income, health insurance, and other benefits.
- Non-compete clauses can prevent workers from leveraging their skills elsewhere.
- Most alternative jobs have similar authoritarian structures.
So while workers technically have the right to quit, exercising this right often comes at an extremely high personal cost. This gives employers significant leverage and makes "freedom to exit" a rather hollow freedom for many workers.
The Historical Context
Early Promises of Capitalism
To understand how we arrived at the current state of workplace governance, Anderson takes us back to the 17th and 18th centuries when modern capitalism was emerging. At the time, markets seemed to offer liberation from the rigid hierarchies and hereditary privileges that dominated society.
Thinkers like Adam Smith envisioned a world where most people would be independent artisans, merchants, or proprietors of small enterprises. The market promised a series of voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges between equal parties. This stood in stark contrast to the bonds of servitude that characterized feudal and aristocratic systems.
For a time, this vision aligned reasonably well with reality. Starting a small business required relatively little capital. Many people could realistically aspire to be self-employed or run their own workshops. Employment was seen as a temporary state, not a permanent condition.
The Industrial Revolution Changes Everything
Anderson argues that the Industrial Revolution fundamentally altered the landscape in ways early capitalist thinkers didn't anticipate. As large-scale manufacturing emerged, it became increasingly difficult for individuals to compete as independent producers. The capital requirements to start a competitive business grew enormously.
This led to a massive shift toward wage labor in large enterprises. Rather than temporary arrangements between equals, employment became a long-term relationship characterized by significant power imbalances. The dream of widespread economic independence gave way to a reality where most people had little choice but to submit to the authority of employers.
Importantly, Anderson notes that our ideas about markets and employment often lag behind this changed reality. Many still cling to an outdated vision of independent producers freely contracting with each other, even though this describes very little of our modern economy.
The Problem of Private Government
Defining Government and Privacy
Anderson argues that the core issue with modern workplaces is that they constitute a form of "private government." To understand this concept, we need to examine what she means by both "government" and "private."
Government, in Anderson's usage, refers to any entity with the power to issue rules and commands backed by sanctions. This broader definition encompasses not just states, but also other institutions that wield authority over people's lives.
"Private" in this context doesn't mean personal or individual. Rather, it refers to something that includes one group while excluding others. A private club, for instance, is open to members but closed to non-members.
Workplace Governance as Private Government
Applying these concepts to the workplace, Anderson argues that company management constitutes a form of government. It issues rules, gives orders, and can impose penalties (up to and including "exile" through firing) for non-compliance.
This government is private because:
- Only a small group (executives and managers) is included in decision-making.
- Workers are generally excluded from the governing process.
- Management isn't required to consider workers' interests or even inform them of decisions.
- Workers typically have no way to select, remove, or hold decision-makers accountable.
In essence, workplace governance operates more like an authoritarian regime than a democracy. While we've made great strides in democratizing our political systems, our economic institutions remain largely undemocratic.
The Public/Private Distinction
Anderson notes that we often think of government (meaning the state) as the "public" sphere and everything else, including business, as the "private" sphere. This leads to the mistaken idea that companies, being private entities, should be free from democratic norms or public accountability.
But Anderson argues this public/private distinction is misplaced when it comes to workplace governance. The fact that a company is privately owned doesn't change the reality that it exercises governmental power over its employees. Just as we demand democratic accountability from state governments, we should also seek ways to make workplace governments more accountable and responsive to those they govern.
The Case for Workplace Democracy
Why Workplace Democracy Matters
Anderson makes a compelling case for why we should care about democratizing workplaces:
Time and impact: Most adults spend a large portion of their waking hours at work. The rules and decisions made in the workplace have an enormous impact on people's lives.
Consistency with political values: If we believe in democracy as a political system, it's inconsistent to accept authoritarianism in the economic sphere where we spend so much of our time.
Personal autonomy: Democratic workplaces give employees more control over the conditions that shape their daily lives and long-term prospects.
Better decisions: Including diverse perspectives in decision-making often leads to better outcomes for the organization as a whole.
Fairness: Democratic processes help ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are considered, not just those at the top.
Forms of Workplace Democracy
Anderson doesn't prescribe a single model for workplace democracy but suggests several possibilities:
Union representation: Collective bargaining gives workers a voice in setting workplace policies and conditions.
Co-determination: Common in some European countries, this involves worker representatives on company boards or work councils.
Employee ownership: When workers own shares in the company, they gain some say in governance.
Cooperatives: Worker-owned and managed businesses represent a more radical form of workplace democracy.
Participatory management: Even within traditional ownership structures, firms can adopt more inclusive decision-making processes.
The key is to find ways to give workers a meaningful voice in the decisions that affect their working lives.
Challenges and Objections
Anderson anticipates several objections to workplace democracy:
Efficiency concerns: Some argue that democratic processes would slow decision-making and reduce efficiency.
Expertise gap: Critics contend that average workers lack the knowledge to make sound business decisions.
Property rights: There's a view that owners should have full control over their property, including how to run their businesses.
Freedom of contract: Some argue that workers freely choose their employment terms and shouldn't get additional say.
Anderson addresses these concerns, arguing that many successful firms already incorporate elements of workplace democracy without sacrificing performance. She also contends that property rights and freedom of contract aren't absolute and must be balanced against other important values.
Rethinking Our Assumptions
The Outdated Market Ideal
A key theme in Anderson's work is that many of our ideas about employment and the labor market are based on an outdated ideal. This ideal, rooted in early capitalist thought, envisions a world of independent producers freely contracting with each other as equals.
But this vision no longer matches reality for most workers. The vast majority of people work for large organizations where they have little individual bargaining power. The "freedom to exit" is often more theoretical than practical given the costs and risks of job loss.
Anderson argues we need to update our mental models to reflect the realities of modern employment relationships. This means recognizing the significant power imbalances that exist and considering how to address them.
The Myth of Separation Between Work and Personal Life
Another assumption Anderson challenges is the idea that there's a clear separation between our work lives and personal lives. In reality, the rules and decisions made in the workplace often have far-reaching effects on employees' lives outside of work.
For example:
- Scheduling policies affect people's ability to care for family or pursue education.
- Workplace stress impacts physical and mental health.
- Company policies on social media use can restrict personal expression.
- Low wages constrain housing options and lifestyle choices.
Recognizing these interconnections highlights why workplace governance is so important and why it shouldn't be immune from democratic norms.
Rethinking Freedom in the Context of Work
Anderson's analysis forces us to reconsider what we mean by freedom in the context of employment. Simply having the legal right to quit a job doesn't necessarily translate into meaningful freedom if exercising that right comes at an unbearable cost.
True freedom in the workplace might involve:
- Having a voice in setting the rules and policies that govern your work life.
- Protection from arbitrary or abusive treatment by superiors.
- The ability to balance work obligations with other life priorities.
- Opportunities for personal growth and development on the job.
By expanding our concept of freedom beyond just "freedom of contract," we can start to envision workplaces that are more aligned with our broader values of liberty and self-determination.
Practical Implications and Potential Solutions
Legal and Policy Changes
While Anderson's book is more focused on analysis than specific policy prescriptions, her arguments have several potential implications for law and policy:
Strengthening labor protections: Expanding and enforcing laws around issues like workplace safety, overtime pay, and protection from discrimination.
Promoting unionization: Removing barriers to union formation and collective bargaining.
Limiting at-will employment: Providing more job security by requiring just cause for termination.
Restricting non-compete agreements: Limiting the use of clauses that prevent workers from seeking better opportunities.
Mandating worker representation: Requiring large companies to include worker representatives on boards or in decision-making processes.
Supporting alternative business models: Providing incentives or support for cooperatives and employee-owned businesses.
Organizational Practices
Even without legal mandates, forward-thinking organizations can adopt practices that promote greater workplace democracy:
Participatory decision-making: Involving employees in decisions that affect their work.
Open-book management: Sharing financial information to help workers understand the business context.
Profit-sharing: Giving employees a stake in the company's success.
Career development: Providing opportunities for growth and advancement within the organization.
Flexible work arrangements: Allowing employees more control over when and how they work.
Grievance procedures: Establishing fair processes for addressing workplace conflicts and concerns.
Individual Actions
While systemic change is needed, individuals can also take steps to promote more democratic workplaces:
Educate yourself: Learn about labor rights, workplace democracy, and alternative business models.
Support unions: If you have the option, consider joining or supporting a union in your workplace.
Advocate for change: Speak up about issues and push for more inclusive decision-making processes.
Seek out ethical employers: When job searching, look for companies with more democratic practices.
Consider alternatives: Explore opportunities in cooperatives or employee-owned businesses.
Build solidarity: Foster connections with coworkers and support each other in pushing for better conditions.
Broader Implications
Rethinking Corporate Governance
Anderson's analysis has implications beyond just employee-employer relationships. It raises questions about how we structure and govern corporations more broadly:
- Should other stakeholders (e.g., local communities, customers) have a say in corporate governance?
- How can we balance the interests of shareholders with those of workers and society at large?
- Are there alternative corporate structures that could better align business activities with democratic values?
These questions become increasingly important as large corporations wield growing influence over many aspects of our lives.
The Relationship Between Economic and Political Democracy
Anderson's work highlights the interconnections between economic and political systems. If people spend most of their waking hours in authoritarian work environments, how does this affect their ability to participate effectively in political democracy?
Conversely, can we have truly robust political democracy without extending democratic principles to the economic sphere? These questions invite us to think more holistically about what a democratic society really means.
Implications for Economic Inequality
The issue of workplace democracy is closely tied to broader concerns about economic inequality. More democratic workplaces could potentially:
- Lead to more equitable distribution of profits and decision-making power within firms.
- Give workers greater leverage to advocate for better wages and working conditions.
- Provide more opportunities for skill development and career advancement.
Addressing the "private government" of workplaces might be an important piece of the puzzle in creating a more economically just society.
Criticisms and Counterarguments
The Efficiency Argument
One common critique of workplace democracy is that it would reduce efficiency and competitiveness. The argument goes that hierarchical structures allow for quick decision-making and clear lines of accountability, which are necessary in a fast-paced business environment.
Anderson and other proponents of workplace democracy counter that:
- Many successful companies already incorporate democratic elements without sacrificing performance.
- Employee involvement can lead to better decisions by incorporating diverse perspectives and front-line knowledge.
- Democratic workplaces may have higher employee engagement and motivation, potentially increasing productivity.
- Even if there are some efficiency trade-offs, these might be worth it for the benefits of a more equitable and satisfying work environment.
The Expertise Gap
Another objection is that most workers lack the expertise to make sound business decisions. Critics argue that leaving key choices to those without specialized knowledge could lead to poor outcomes.
Responses to this argument include:
- Democratic workplaces don't necessarily mean every decision is made by popular vote. Different models can incorporate expertise while still giving workers a voice.
- Many workplace decisions don't require specialized business knowledge but do benefit from employee input.
- With proper information sharing and training, workers can develop the capacity to engage meaningfully in more complex decisions.
- The current system often fails to fully utilize the knowledge and insights of front-line workers.
Property Rights and Shareholder Primacy
Some argue that owners and shareholders should have full control over their property, including how to run their businesses. This view sees any mandated form of worker participation as an infringement on property rights.
Counterarguments to this position include:
- Property rights are not absolute and are often limited for the public good (e.g., environmental regulations).
- Corporations benefit from public infrastructure and legal protections, so they have obligations to the broader community, including their workers.
- Shareholders are not the only stakeholders who invest in a company's success. Workers often invest years of their lives and deserve a say.
- The shareholder primacy model is a relatively recent development and not the only way to conceive of corporate governance.
The Freedom of Contract Argument
Some contend that workers freely choose their employment terms when they accept a job, so there's no need for additional protections or participation rights.
Anderson and others respond that:
- The "choice" to work is often not really voluntary given the need for income to survive.
- There's a significant power imbalance in most employment negotiations.
- Workers often lack full information about workplace conditions when accepting a job.
- Even if initial terms are freely chosen, the employer's power to unilaterally change conditions later undermines this argument.
Conclusion: A Call for Reimagining Work
Elizabeth Anderson's "Private Government" challenges us to rethink fundamental assumptions about the nature of work and employment in modern society. By framing workplace authority as a form of "private government," she highlights the often-overlooked power dynamics that shape millions of people's daily lives.
The book's key insights include:
- Most workplaces operate as authoritarian private governments with far-reaching power over employees.
- The "freedom to exit" is often more theoretical than practical for many workers.
- Our ideas about markets and employment are often based on outdated models that no longer reflect reality.
- There's a pressing need to extend democratic principles to the economic sphere.
- Various forms of workplace democracy could help address these issues.
Anderson's analysis invites us to imagine alternatives to the current system. What would work look like if we took seriously the idea that those governed by workplace rules should have a say in creating them? How might our economy and society change if we brought our political ideals of democracy and self-governance into the realm of employment?
While the book doesn't offer a detailed blueprint for change, it provides a compelling framework for thinking about these issues. It challenges both defenders of the status quo and would-be reformers to engage more deeply with questions of power, freedom, and democracy in the context of work.
Ultimately, "Private Government" is a call to reimagine work in ways that better align with our professed values of liberty, equality, and democratic self-governance. It suggests that creating more democratic workplaces isn't just about improving conditions for workers—it's about building a society that more fully embodies our highest ideals.
As we grapple with ongoing changes in the nature of work, from the gig economy to automation, Anderson's insights become ever more relevant. Her book provides a valuable foundation for thinking critically about how we organize economic activity and what kind of working lives we want to create for ourselves and future generations.
Whether you agree with all of Anderson's conclusions or not, "Private Government" offers a thought-provoking and important contribution to debates about the future of work, the nature of freedom, and the meaning of democracy in modern society. It challenges us to look beyond surface-level discussions of workplace policies and consider the deeper structures of power that shape our economic lives.