To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter surveys the economic and business context within which British employers managed their labour force from the turn of the century to the Second World War. It stresses the major market fluctuations which resulted in dramatic shifts in the balance of power between employers and their employees. The chapter considers changes in market structure, in particular the growth of restrictive and protectionist practices which contributed to the maintenance of the traditional pattern of labour management. The period also saw a significant growth of large firms, especially in the newer sectors of industry; however, changes in corporate structure and managerial hierarchy came only very slowly and this inhibited the development of labour management. Finally the chapter deals with the management of production. Though there were important changes in production methods, there was also considerable continuity in work organisation and traditional patterns of work relations remained strong in many industries.
Economic conditions of war and depression
The early years of the twentieth century saw a continuation of the relatively poor economic performance of the British economy which had first become evident in the late nineteenth century. In the Edwardian period up to the First World War, there was a sharp deceleration of growth in output, industrial productivity, and incomes. Investment overseas yielded higher returns than capital invested in British industry and Britain's share of world manufacturing output and trade fell. It is not surprising that in these circumstances concern about foreign competition grew and anxieties about Britain's ability to meet the challenge mounted. The First World War hastened some trends and retarded others.
The purpose of this book has been to examine the development of labour management in Britain from the late nineteenth century more or less up to the present. It has argued that historically most British employers externalised many aspects of labour management and only slowly and hesitantly built strong internal structures. The fact that there were always exceptions to this general pattern and that a few large firms pursued strategies of internalisation is explained in terms of different market contexts, corporate structures and managerial hierarchies, and production technologies. In the following section the argument is summarised chronologically. The next section then reformulates the conclusions in more thematic terms. A final section reverts to the propositions outlined in Chapter 1 and draws some broader conclusions.
A chronological overview
The British economy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was characterised by a large number of small, family-owned and-managed enterprises catering for highly differentiated markets at home and abroad. Internally within most firms managerial hierarchies were weak, and owners often relied on various forms of sub-contracting and on largely independent foremen for workplace control. Some large enterprises existed, notably the railway companies, the gas companies, and a few manufacturing firms, and these had more extensive managerial hierarchies. From the 1870s onwards, British entrepreneurs witnessed an intensification in foreign competition, especially from Germany and the US, and there was a growing recognition of this competitive threat. One response was the merger wave at the turn of the century. However, this mainly resulted in loose defensive amalgamations held together as holding companies and there was a failure to develop more sophisticated managerial hierarchies.
For those who, like myself, are enthusiastic advocates of normativelydriven empirical studies of business ethics and values, a display of expert knowledge concerning methods of the sort we see here is occasion for large measures of professional satisfaction. With all of their imperfections and qualifications, all of the tentativeness attached to the truths they yield, these methods (and similar others not included here) open vistas not accessible by other modes of inquiry. For these gains, scholars everywhere should be grateful.
Yet, questions nag at the back of one's mind, even as the positive accomplishments are registered.
Business ethics is an eclectic blend of intellectual traditions that seeks to exam ine the question of “what should I do in my business relationships.” This paper attempts to widen this discussion by proposing an alternative view of the nature of ethical behaviour: ethical behaviour as a situated social accomplishment. From an ethnomethodological perspective, norms and rules have the status of interpretive aids which are used to negotiate an acceptable meaning for a situation; norms and rules are constituted by, and in part constitute, the situations in which they occur. While most work in business ethics has tended to reify ethical practices, this paper stresses the contingent and situational nature of ethical decision making. In addition to presenting an ethnomethodological perspective, this paper discusses the methodological ramifications of this perspective through an examination of three ethnographic studies of situated rule usage.
For any worthwhile study of society must be philosophical in character and any worthwhile philosophy nzust be concerned with the nature of human society.
Virtually every empirical inquiry of issues relevant to applied business ethics involves the asking of questions that are sensitive, embarrassing, threatening, stigmatizing, or incriminating. Accordingly, questions of this sort are likely to result in unsatisfactory outcomes: 1) many individuals will not respond; and/or, 2) many individuals will not respond candidly. An obvious objective, then, is to use a method to collect information which increases participation, provides absolute anonymity, and does not jeopardize subjects’ privacy. The randomized response technique (RRT) is a method designed to realize this promise. We provide here an overview of RRT approaches and applications which may be effectively used in empirical examinations of potentially sensitive issues in business ethics.
This paper argues that the personal interview method is particularly appropriate for the kind of exploratory and complicated theory-building research that ethical decision-making, as a topic, represents at present. In doing so, it examines the key tasks of the ethics researcher, the suitability of interviews for obtaining the kind of data needed to accomplish these tasks, and the ensuing problems faced by the interview methodologist. It concludes with suggestions for enhancing the validity and reliability of interview-based ethics research.
Various authors advocate consideration of stakeholder value concerns in organizational decision making. Brenner and Cochran (1990, 1991) propose a stakeholder theory of the firm which contains several propositions and a stakeholder value matrix. In order to begin any stakeholder model validation, an approach is needed to measure stakeholder value and influence weights. We propose a multicriteria decision modeling approach, utilizing the analytic hierarchy process, to estimate stakeholder value matrix weights. This approach is illustrated using a simplified example and suggestions are made regarding the process needed to begin to validate the stakeholder theory of the firm.