Tokenism is a system, as opposed to it being an individual construct. One advantage of tokenism is that it requires system level intervention. This fact means that token based issues are easy to solve as they are solved at the system level. Thus, outside intervention can be kept at a standard minimum concerning tokens. This means that matters arising can be resolved internally. Thus, these matters can be resolved more amicably and under conditions that are friendlier irrespective of the gravity of the decisions to be made as well as the repercussions that these choices may have on certain individuals (Handel, 2003).
One disadvantage of tokenism is that, in the absence of external forces that are aimed at initiating change, tokenism becomes a self-perpetuating mechanism. This fact simply means that the status quo is maintained irrespective of whether or not this status quo is desirable for all the concerned parties. This is because all decisions are made at the system level thus making every decision an internal decision (Handel, 2003). An array of very bad internal decisions can, therefore, be made in the absence of an external force inorder to bring about change and a better systematic environment for the concerned parties.
Organizations that have transformed to worker ownership are relatively much more successful. This is because, in these organizations, there is a higher degree of democratization. This means that the opinions of all the workers matter as opposed to the opinions of the administrative authority alone. Thus, employees in such organizations are at a higher level in terms of morale and are, therefore, inclined to work harder leading to greater profits and better working conditions.
Champion, D. J. (2005). The sociology of organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Handel, M. J. (2003). The sociology of organizations: classic, contemporary, and critical readings. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.