{{Short description|Application of democratic principles to places of work}}
{{Socialism sidebar|ideas}}
'''Workplace democracy''' is the application of [[democracy]] in various forms to the [[workplace]], such as [[voting]] systems, [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]], [[debate]]s, democratic structuring, [[due process]], adversarial process, and systems of [[appeal]]. It can be implemented in a variety of ways, depending on the size, culture, and other variables of an organization.[{{cite journal |last=Rayasam |first=Renuka |date=24 April 2008 |title=Why Workplace Democracy Can Be Good Business |journal=[[U.S. News & World Report]] |url=https://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2008/04/24/why-workplace-democracy-can-be-good-business |access-date=2021-06-24}}][{{cite web|title=The Case of Marland Mold |publisher=Center for Learning in Action|url=https://learning-in-action.williams.edu/breaking-the-mold/the-case-of-marland-mold |access-date=2018-09-16}}]
==Theory==
===Economic argument===
From as early as the 1920s, scholars have been exploring the idea of increasing employee participation and involvement. They sought to learn whether including employees in organizational decision-making would lead to increased effectiveness and productivity within the organization. According to Lewin, individuals who are involved in decision-making also have increased openness to change.[{{Cite journal | doi=10.1177/017084069401500202|title = CEO Attitudes as Determinants of Organization Design: An Integrated Model| journal=Organization Studies| volume=15| issue=2| pages=183–212|year = 1994|last1 = Lewin|first1 = Arie Y.| last2=Stephens| first2=Carroll U.|s2cid = 144237046}}]
===Citizenship argument===
Workplace democracy may encourage public participation in a government's political process. Skills developed from democracy in the workplace can transfer to improved citizenship and result in a better functioning democracy.[{{cite book |title=The theory of democratic elitism: a critique |last=Bachrach |first=P. |location=Boston, MA |publisher=Little, Brown |date=1967 |isbn=978-0-316-07485-8}}]
===Ethical justification===
Philosopher [[Robert Dahl]] views that, "If democracy is justified in governing the state, it must also be justified in governing economic enterprises."[{{Cite journal | doi=10.1177/0951692890002001005|title = Theorizing about Workplace Democracy Robert Dahl and the Cooperatives of Mondragón| journal=Journal of Theoretical Politics| volume=2| pages=109–126|year = 1990|last1 = Zirakzabeh|first1 = Cyrus Ernesto|s2cid = 145142694}}] Some political scientists have questioned whether the state-firm analogy is the most appropriate way to justify workplace democratization.[{{Cite journal|last=Frega|first=Roberto|date=2020-06-01|title=Against Analogy|url=http://berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/democratic-theory/7/1/dt070102.xml|journal=Democratic Theory|volume=7|issue=1|pages=1–26|doi=10.3167/dt.2020.070102|s2cid=235862817 |issn=2332-8894|url-access=subscription}} but contrast {{Cite journal|last=Vrousalis|first=Nicholas|date=2019-10-01|title=Workplace Democracy Entails Economic Democracy|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josp.12275|journal=Journal of Social Philosophy|volume=50|issue=1|pages=526–42|doi=10.1111/josp.12275|s2cid=150787360 |hdl=1887/86062|hdl-access=free}}]
Marxist theorist [[Richard D. Wolff]] argues that capitalism erodes workers’ moral capacity and expectation for genuine democratic participation in society.[{{Cite journal |date=2018-04-03 |title=Democracy and the (Ir)responsibility of Economics |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07360932.2018.1451766 |journal=Forum for Social Economics |language=en |volume=47 |issue=2 |pages=220–223 |doi=10.1080/07360932.2018.1451766 |issn=0736-0932|url-access=subscription }}][{{Cite book |last=Wolff |first=Richard D. |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781000706949 |title=Marx's Capital after 150 Years: Critique and Alternative to Capitalism |date=2019-09-23 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-32928-9 |editor-last=Musto |editor-first=Marcello |edition=1 |language=en |chapter=Marx’s new concept of class |doi=10.4324/9780429329289-7 |chapter-url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit//marx-new-concept-class-richard-wolff}}]{{undue weight inline|date=March 2026}}
===Employee power and representation===
Workers working for democratic leaders report positive results such as group member satisfaction, friendliness, group mindedness, 'we' statements, worker motivation, creativity, and dedication to decisions made within an organization.[Northouse, P. G. (2015). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice (3rd ed). Kalamazoo, MI: SAGE Publications. 978-1-4833-1276-7]
When workplace democracy is used the effect typically is raised employee potential, employee representation, higher [[autonomy]], and equal power within an organization.[{{cite journal | url=https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750310397896 | doi=10.1177/1476750310397896 | title=Co-construction of management concepts: Interpretative viability as opportunity for workplace democracy | date=2011 | last1=Rolfsen | first1=Monica | journal=Action Research | volume=9 | issue=4 | pages=329–343 | url-access=subscription }}] Workplaces can exhibit varying degrees of democratic governance, and such "democratic organizing", ranging from [[worker representation on corporate boards of directors|codetermination]] and [[cooperative]]s to enhanced worker decision-making, has been linked not only to internal organizational outcomes but also to broader civic and democratic engagement in society.[{{Cite journal |last=Battilana |first=Julie |last2=Beckman |first2=Christine M. |last3=Yen |first3=Julie |date=2025-06-01 |title=On Democratic Organizing and Organization Theory |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392251322430 |journal=Administrative Science Quarterly |language=EN |volume=70 |issue=2 |pages=297–327 |doi=10.1177/00018392251322430 |issn=0001-8392|url-access=subscription }}]
==Political association==
Workplace democracy theory closely follows political democracy, especially in larger workplaces. Democratic workplace organization is often associated with [[trade unions]], [[Anarchism|anarchist]], and [[Socialism|socialist]] (especially [[Libertarian socialism|libertarian socialist]]) movements. Most unions have democratic structures at least for selecting the leader, and sometimes these are seen as providing the only democratic aspects to the workplace. Not every workplace that lacks a union lacks democracy, and not every workplace that has a union necessarily has a democratic way to resolve disputes.[{{cite web|author=G. William Domhoff |url=https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/history_of_labor_unions.html |title=Who Rules America: The Rise and Fall of Labor Unions in the U.S |publisher=Whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu |access-date=2018-09-16}}]
The [[Menshevik]]-led [[Democratic Republic of Georgia]] experimented with workplace democracy by promoting cooperatives in the economy. These cooperatives were ended when Georgia was annexed into the [[Soviet Union]].[{{Cite web|url=https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/forgotten-democratic-socialist-republic-georgia|title = The Forgotten Democratic Socialist Republic of Georgia}}][{{Cite web|url=https://www.zedbooks.net/blog/posts/10865/|title=ACADEMIC: Politics & International Relations: Books: Bloomsbury Publishing (UK)}}]
In Sweden, the [[Swedish Social Democratic Party]] made laws and reforms from 1950 to 1970 to establish more democratic workplaces.[{{Citation|title=The Origins and Myths of the Swedish Model of Workplace Democracy|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/9BC3465BED4345ABCC64289DF6B6ACB9/S0960777314000423a.pdf/div-class-title-the-origins-and-myths-of-the-swedish-model-of-workplace-democracy-div.pdf}}]
[[Salvador Allende]] championed a [[Cordón industrial|large number of such experiments]] in Chile when he became president of Chile in 1970.[{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/06/archives/allende-chilean-marxist-wins-vote-for-presidency-allende-chilean.html|title=Allende, Chilean Marxist, Wins Vote for Presidency|last=Onis|first=Juan de|date=1970-09-06|work=The New York Times|access-date=2019-03-07|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}]
==Current approaches==
=== Equity model ===
In the equity model, employees own voting shares of their company, most commonly through an [[employee stock ownership]] plan. The equity model of workplace democracy exists when bottom-up practices, such as [[participatory management]], are combined with the top-down influence provided by their voting rights.[{{Cite web|url=https://learning-in-action.williams.edu/breaking-the-mold/what-is-workplace-democracy/|title=What is Workplace Democracy?}}]
=== Staff and Worker Representative Congresses ===
{{see also|Worker representation on corporate boards of directors}}
In [[China]], a form of workplace democracy is mandated by law for [[State-owned enterprises of China|state-owned enterprises]][{{Cite web|url=http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/lawsdata/chineselaw/200303/20030300072563.shtml|title=Law on Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole People -|access-date=2020-06-13|archive-date=2022-05-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220519164455/http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/lawsdata/chineselaw/200303/20030300072563.shtml|url-status=dead}}] and permitted in non-state-owned collectives and companies. This is done through Staff and Worker Representative Congresses (SWRCs), composed of workers directly elected by all workers in the workplace to represent them. As of the 1980s and 1990s, SWRCs were, in theory, broadly similar to continental European and Japanese workers' workplace councils in terms of rights and powers and consensus building, as opposed to the Anglo-American model "adversarial model" relating management and workers. Findings from interviews in 1997 suggested that in practice, SWRCs did have some real power, including some cases of dismissing managers.[{{cite journal|first1=Zhu|last1=Xiaoyang|first2=Anita|last2=Chan|url=http://bellschool.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/IPS/PSC/CCC/publications/papers/Anita_Staff_and_Workers_Rep_Congress_pdf.pdf |journal=[[Chinese Sociology and Anthropology]]|volume=37|pages=6–33|date=2005|title=Staff and Workers' Representative Congress|doi=10.1080/21620555.2005.11038349 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200613151932/http://bellschool.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/IPS/PSC/CCC/publications/papers/Anita_Staff_and_Workers_Rep_Congress_pdf.pdf |archive-date=2020-06-13}}]
=== Examples of companies organized by workplace democracy ===
====Mondragon====
{{Excerpt|Mondragon Corporation}}
====Marland Mold====
Marland Mold was a company started in 1946 in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, by Severino Marchetto and Paul Ferland. The company at first, designed and built steel molds for plastic products throughout the 1950s and 60s. In 1969 the owners sold the company to VCA which was later bought by The Ethyl Corporation. The Marland Mold employees voted to join the [[International Union of Electrical Workers]], because of a dispute that took place over health insurance. The plant's manager started to pay less attention and put less time into the Pittsfield plant so the profits declined. The plant was put up for sale in 1992. The employees ended up buying out the plant, even though they weren't fans of employee ownership before, they needed to save their jobs. There immediately was a burst in production and they were able to produce molds that normally took the 3,000 hours to make in 2,200 hours. They had financial stake in the company now which gave them new motivation for the company's success. The other two ideas that were key components to their success was the education of all members about their new roles, and building an ownership culture within the organization. In 1995, they had officially bought all ownership stock and buyout lenders and the company was completely employee owned. Through all of this employees were also able to gain a broader perspective on the company, like being able to understand others views of different conflicts in the workplace. In 2007, Marland Mold celebrated their 15th anniversary of employee ownership.[{{cite web |title=Marland Mold, Inc,: Private Company Information | website=[[Bloomberg News]] |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=6906486 |access-date=30 March 2019}}] In 2017, the Pittsfield plant was shut.[{{cite web |title=French firm to close Curtil Marland Mold in Pittsfield; 40 positions lost |date=16 February 2017 |url=https://www.berkshireeagle.com/stories/french-firm-to-close-curtil-marland-mold-in-pittsfield-40-positions-lost,498475 |access-date=30 March 2019}}]
====Semco====
In the 1980s, [[Brazil]]ian businessman [[Ricardo Semler]], converted his family firm, a light manufacturing concern called Semco, and transformed it into a strictly democratic establishment where managers were interviewed and then elected by workers. All managerial decisions were subject to democratic review, debate and vote, with the full participation of all workers. This radical approach to management got him and the company a great deal of attention. Semler argued that handing the company over to the workers was the only way to free time for himself to go build up the customer, government and other relationships required to make the company grow. By giving up the fight to hold any control of internals, Semler was able to focus on marketing, positioning, and offer his advice (as a paid, elected spokesman, though his position as major shareholder was not so negotiable) as if he were, effectively, an outside management consultant hired by the company. Decentralization of management functions, he claimed, gave him a combination of insider information and outsider credibility, plus the legitimacy of truly speaking for his workers in the same sense as an elected political leader.[{{cite web|url=https://mallenbaker.net/article/inspiring-people/ricardo-semler-the-radical-boss-who-proved-that-workplace-democracy-works |title=Ricardo Semler: The radical boss who proved that workplace democracy works | Mallen Baker's Respectful Business Blog |publisher=Mallenbaker.net |date=2017-01-03 |access-date=2018-09-16}}]
== Research on workplace democracy ==
===Public opinion===
A 2023 study in the United States found that the people surveyed generally support workplace democracy, even in survey experiments where respondents are exposed to question framings that emphasize the costs of workplace democracy.[{{Cite journal |last1=Mazumder |first1=Soumyajit |last2=Yan |first2=Alan N. |date=2023 |title=What Do Americans Want from (Private) Government? Experimental Evidence Demonstrates that Americans Want Workplace Democracy |journal=American Political Science Review |volume=118 |issue=2 |pages=1020–1036 |language=en |doi=10.1017/S0003055423000667 |issn=0003-0554|doi-access=free }}]
===Management science studies===
London Business School chief, Nigel Nicholson, in his 1998 [[Harvard Business]] Review paper: "How Hardwired is Human Behavior?" suggested that human nature was just as likely to cause problems in the workplace as in larger social and political settings, and that similar methods were required to deal with stressful situations and difficult problems. He held up the workplace democracy model advanced by Ricardo Semler as the "only" one that actually took cognizance of human foibles.[{{Cite journal | url=https://hbr.org/1998/07/how-hardwired-is-human-behavior | title=How Hardwired is Human Behavior?| journal=Harvard Business Review| date=July 1998| last1=Nicholson| first1=Nigel| volume=76| issue=4| pages=134–147| pmid=10181587}}]
=== Effects on productivity ===
A meta-analysis of 43 studies on worker participation found there was no negative correlation between workplace democracy and higher efficiency and productivity.[{{Cite journal|last=Doucouliagos|first=Chris|date=October 1995|title=Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-Analysis|url=https://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Cooperatives/Worker_Participation_and_Productivity-Meta_Analysis.pdf|journal=Industrial and Labor Relations Review|volume=49|pages=58–77|doi=10.1177/001979399504900104|s2cid=58906938|via=United Diversity}}] A report looking at research on democratic workplaces in the US, Europe and Latin America found workplace democracy had staff working 'better and smarter' with production organized more efficiently. They were also able to organize more efficiently on a larger scale and in more capital-intensive industries than hierarchical workplaces.[{{Cite web|last=Pérotin|first=Virginie|date=|title=What do we really know about worker co-operatives?|url=https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/2020-10/worker_co-op_report.pdf|access-date=2023-09-22}}] A 1987 study of democratic workplaces in Italy, the UK and France found that workplace democracy has a positive relationship with productivity and that democratic firms do not get less productive as they get larger.[{{Cite journal|last1=Estrin|first1=Saul|last2=Jones|first2=Derek C|last3=Svejnar|first3=Jan|date=1987-03-01|title=The productivity effects of worker participation: Producer cooperatives in western economies|journal=Journal of Comparative Economics|language=en|volume=11|issue=1|pages=40–61|doi=10.1016/0147-5967(87)90040-0|issn=0147-5967}}] A report on democratic workplaces in the USA found that they can increase worker incomes by 70-80%, that they can grow 2% faster a year than other businesses and have 9-19% greater levels of productivity, 45% lower turnover rates and are 30% less likely to fail in the first few years of operation.[{{Cite web|title=WORKER COOPERATIVES: PATHWAYS TO SCALE|url=https://democracycollaborative.org/sites/default/files/downloads/WorkerCoops-PathwaysToScale.pdf|last=Abell|first=Hilary|date=June 2014|website=The Democracy Collaborative|access-date=2020-05-07|archive-date=2022-02-28|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220228142418/https://democracycollaborative.org/sites/default/files/downloads/WorkerCoops-PathwaysToScale.pdf|url-status=dead}}] A 1995 study of workplace democracy in the timber industry in the Northwest United States found that productivity increased by 6 to 14% with workplace democracy.[{{Cite journal|title=Participation and Productivity: A Comparison of Worker Cooperatives and Conventional Firms in the Plywood Industry|url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf|journal=Brookings Papers: Microeconomics 1995}}] A 2006 meta-study on workplace democracy found that it can 'equal or exceed the productivity of conventional enterprises when employee involvement is combined with ownership' and 'enrich local social capital.'[{{Cite journal|last1=Logue|first1=John|last2=Yates|first2=Jacquelyn S.|date=2006-11-01|title=Cooperatives, Worker-Owned Enterprises, Productivity and the International Labor Organization|journal=Economic and Industrial Democracy|language=en|volume=27|issue=4|pages=686–690|doi=10.1177/0143831X06069019|s2cid=153938396|issn=0143-831X}}] Another 2006 study reviewing existing evidence found that contrary to the popular idea that worker participation would decrease productivity, it actually increases it.[{{Cite journal |last=Levin |first=Henry M. |date=2006-03-01 |title=Worker Democracy and Worker Productivity |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0002-z |journal=Social Justice Research |language=en |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=109–121 |doi=10.1007/s11211-006-0002-z |s2cid=19971458 |issn=1573-6725|url-access=subscription }}] A 1985 study in France found that the typical increase to productivity from workplace democracy was about 5%.[{{Cite journal |last1=Defourney |first1=Jacques |last2=Estrin |first2=Saul |last3=Jones |first3=Derek C. |date=1985-06-01 |title=The effects of workers' participation on enterprise performance: Empirical evidence from French cooperatives |url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-7187%2885%2990004-9 |journal=International Journal of Industrial Organization |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=197–217 |doi=10.1016/0167-7187(85)90004-9 |issn=0167-7187|url-access=subscription }}] Another 2022 study using data from France found workplace democracy increases economic performance in knowledge-heavy sectors.[{{Cite journal |last1=Young-Hyman |first1=Trevor |last2=Magne |first2=Nathalie |last3=Kruse |first3=Douglas |date=July 2023 |title=A Real Utopia Under What Conditions? The Economic and Social Benefits of Workplace Democracy in Knowledge-Intensive Industries |url=https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.2022.1622 |journal=Organization Science |language=en |volume=34 |issue=4 |pages=1353–1382 |doi=10.1287/orsc.2022.1622 |issn=1047-7039|url-access=subscription }}]
However, a 1986 study of plywood companies in the USA found democratic workplaces lost productivity due to them hiring more workers who were not given equal democratic rights compared to original workers.[{{Cite journal |last=Grunberg |first=Leon |date=1986-01-01 |title=Safety, Productivity and the Social Relations in Production: An Empirical Study of Worker Cooperatives |url=https://doi.org/10.1108/eb013025 |journal=International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=87–102 |doi=10.1108/eb013025 |issn=0144-333X|url-access=subscription }}] Another study looking at evidence of construction companies in the 1980s indicated that democratic workplaces had equal or lower productivity compared to other workplaces.[{{Citation |last=Jones |first=Derek C. |chapter=The Productive Efficiency of Italian Producer Cooperatives: Evidence from Conventional and Cooperative Firms |date=2007-01-01 |title=Cooperative Firms in Global Markets |volume=10 |pages=3–28 |editor-last=Novkovic |editor-first=Sonja |chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-3339(06)10001-0 |access-date=2024-02-25 |series=Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory & Labor-Managed Firms |publisher=Emerald Group Publishing Limited |doi=10.1016/S0885-3339(06)10001-0 |isbn=978-0-7623-1389-1 |editor2-last=Sena |editor2-first=Vania|chapter-url-access=subscription }}]
=== Effects on business longevity ===
According to an analysis, businesses with democratic workplaces in [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], and [[Quebec]] in the 2000s were almost half as likely as businesses with hierarchical workplaces to fail in ten years.[{{Cite web|title=Worker Cooperatives Performance and Success Factors|url=https://www.co-oplaw.org/special-topics/worker-cooperatives-performance-and-success-factors/|website=Co-opLaw.org|date=22 October 2014|language=en-US|access-date=2020-05-15|archive-date=2022-11-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221118115602/https://www.co-oplaw.org/special-topics/worker-cooperatives-performance-and-success-factors/|url-status=dead}}] According to an analysis of all businesses in Uruguay between 1997 - 2009, businesses with democratic workplaces have a 29% smaller chance of closure than other firms.[{{Cite journal|last=Burdín|first=Gabriel|date=January 2014|title=Are Worker-Managed Firms More Likely to Fail Than Conventional Enterprises? Evidence from Uruguay|journal=ILR Review|language=en-US|volume=67|issue=1|pages=202–238|doi=10.1177/001979391406700108|s2cid=154970350|issn=0019-7939}}] In Italy, businesses with democratic workplaces that have been created by workers buying a business when it's facing a closure or put up to sale have a 3-year survival rate of 87%, compared to 48% of all Italian businesses.[{{Cite web|title=The path to worker buyouts: Does the UK need its own 'Marcora Law'?|url=https://www.thenews.coop/97306/sector/retail/path-worker-buyouts-uk-need-marcora-law/ |work=[[Co-op News]] |date=7 September 2015}}] In 2005, 1% of German businesses failed but the statistic for businesses with democratic workplaces was less than 0.1%.[{{Cite journal|last=Olsen|first=E.K.|date=2013-01-01|title=The relative survival of worker cooperatives and barriers to their creation|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287576212|journal=Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms|volume=14|pages=83–107|doi=10.1108/S0885-3339(2013)0000014005|isbn=978-1-78190-750-4}}] During the 2008 economic crisis, the number of workers in businesses with democratic workplaces in France increased by 4.2%, while employment in other businesses decreased by 0.7%.[{{Cite web|title=The resilience of the cooperative model|url=https://issuu.com/cicopa/docs/report_cecop_2012_en_web|website=Issuu|date=14 December 2014|language=en|access-date=2020-05-15|archive-date=2020-06-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200607160835/https://issuu.com/cicopa/docs/report_cecop_2012_en_web|url-status=dead}}]
=== Effects on workers ===
A 2018 study from [[South Korea]] found that workers had higher motivation in democratic workplaces.[{{Cite journal|last=Park|first=Rhokeun|date=2018-01-29|title=Responses to job demands: moderating role of worker cooperatives|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322782065|journal=Employee Relations|volume=40|issue=2|pages=346–361|doi=10.1108/ER-06-2017-0137}}] A 2014 study from [[Italy]] found that democratic workplaces were the only kind of workplace which increased trust between workers.[{{Cite journal|last1=Sabatini|first1=Fabio|last2=Modena|first2=Francesca|last3=Tortia|first3=Ermanno|date=2014|title=Do cooperative enterprises create social trust?|url=https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/sbusec/v42y2014i3p621-641.html|journal=Small Business Economics|language=en|volume=42|issue=3|pages=621–641|doi=10.1007/s11187-013-9494-8|s2cid=16528387|hdl=10419/142639|hdl-access=free}}] A 2013 study from the [[United States]] found that democratic workplaces in the healthcare industry had significantly higher levels of job satisfaction.[{{Cite journal|last=Berry|first=D.P.|date=2013-01-01|title=Effects of cooperative membership and participation in decision making on job satisfaction of home health aides|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289325273|journal=Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms|volume=14|pages=3–25|doi=10.1108/S0885-3339(2013)0000014002|isbn=978-1-78190-750-4}}] A 2011 study in [[France]] found that democratic workplaces “had a positive effect on workers’ job satisfaction.”[{{Cite journal|last1=Castel|first1=Davy|last2=Lemoine|first2=Claude|last3=Durand-Delvigne|first3=Annick|date=2011-11-01|title=Working in Cooperatives and Social Economy: Effects on Job Satisfaction and the Meaning of Work|url=https://journals.openedition.org/pistes/2635|journal=Perspectives Interdisciplinaires Sur le Travail et la Santé|language=en|issue=13–2|doi=10.4000/pistes.2635|issn=1481-9384|doi-access=free}}] A 2019 meta-study indicates that “the impact [of democratic workplaces] on the happiness workers is generally positive”.[{{Cite web|title=Happiness theory and worker cooperatives: A critique of the alignment thesis {{!}} Request PDF|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335405081|website=ResearchGate|language=en|access-date=2020-05-07}}] A 1995 study from the United States indicates that “employees who embrace an increased influence and participation in workplace decisions also reported greater job satisfaction”.[{{Cite news |first=Anthony |last=Murray |title=Co-operatives make for a happy place to work |url=https://www.thenews.coop/39464/topic/democracy/co-operatives-make-happy-place-work/ |work=[[Co-op News]] |date=20 March 2013}}] A 2008 study found mixed results for "spillover" effects on workers, where working in a democratic workplace doesn't increase the odds of voting but slightly increases the odds of community engagement.[{{Cite book |title=Cooperation: The political psychology of effective human interaction |chapter-url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-09164-013 |chapter=Spillovers from cooperative and democratic workplaces: Have the benefits been oversold?}}] A 1986 study of plywood companies in the USA found that democratic workplaces tended to over-report accidents whilst conventional capitalist ones would under-report them. Contrary to theoretical expectations of democratic workplaces, they were not safer for workers than conventional capitalist workplaces.