Sources and Tips for Assignment 1 (History 105; Prof. Stansbury)—.docx

Sources and Tips for Assignment 1 (History 105; Prof.
Stansbury)—3 pages here
LENGTH AND DEVELOPMENT: Each paper in our class is a
5-paragraph essay, plus there is a title page (=cover page) at the
start and a Sources list at the end. The body of the paper is to
be double-spaced. The body of the paper should be five
paragraphs and a total of 500-to-800 words in length. The 500
minimum is firm; you really have not adequately developed the
paper if less than that. The 800-word upper limit is really a
guideline—ok to go over. Just don’t ramble. To determine
length, I look at the BODY of the paper only (not title page or
sources list) and consider primarily the word count. (Microsoft
Word makes this easy. Just select from the first line of your
first paragraph to the last line of your last paragraph. The
word-count is provided on the lower left by MS-Word.). [I do
not go by number of pages because there are too many ways that
gets fudged by margins, font size, line spacing, etc. However,
fyi---Typically, if you follow these instructions, the body of
your paper will be 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 pages in length—add a page
for your title page and another for your sources list and that
then gets to 4-1/2-to 5/1/2.]
Your paper must have a numbered list of sources at the end
combined with short in-text citations to those sources in the
body of the paper. Any direct quote needs both quote marks
and an in-text citation to the source. Any paraphrase or
summary of information from a source requires an in-text
citation to that source.
Use ONLY the sources designated. If for some reason you must
use additional sources, do NOT google for them—use the
university library. Pages 2 and 3 below show the sources for
each topic and the SWS format for listing and citing each.
In this assignment, do NOT include long quotes of 4 lines or
more. The paper is too short for that. Keep any quotes short
and clearly marked with quote marks and a citation. Most of

the paper should be you using mostly your words while using
and summarizing information from your sources, as well as
commenting and developing the paper according to the
instructions. TIP: Before writing your paper, brainstorm first
and make a general list or outline of each paragraph and what it
will include. Use the class text for examples or specific
information, and jot down the page numbers where you found
that information. Do the same with other sources used. This
will make your writing of the paper much easier. Then, start
typing a rough draft. Plan to revise and edit yourself; allot time
to polish the paper before you finally submit. Procrastination is
the enemy of quality.
--------------------
ON THE NEXT TWO PAGES—How to list and how to cite the
sources in your paper. Each of the three topics (as shown on
the instruction sheet) identified sources by link and short
identification. On the next two pages, you will see how each of
those same sources look in an in-text citation (in the body of the
paper), and how each on looks on an SWS style list of sources
at the end of your paper. Obviously, focus on the part related to
the topic you chose. Chapters 16-through-21 of the class text
have relevant info for Assignment 1, but focus on the pages
listed for the topic you choose. When citing the class text (or
any book), the in-text citation should include specific page
numbers where the information was found. With an eBook,
normally you can click on the screen and the page number will
appear on the lower left of the screen. [continued on next page]
p. 2
TOPIC CHOICE ONE: Empowering African Americans—Two
Strategies
From instruction sheet---- Sources: Schultz, p. 340–2, 400–1,
404–5. See http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/39/; and
see http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/40 But don’t list or cite
them this way; see proper form below.

The SWS style in-text citations in the body of your paper would
look something like these:
(Schultz, 1, p. #). (Washington, 2). (DuBois, 3).
The SWS style list of sources at the end of your paper would
look something like this, though the order may vary:
Sources
1. Kevin M. Schultz. 2018. HIST: Volume 2: U.S. History since
1865. 5th ed.
2. Booker T. Washington. 1895. Booker T. Washington
Delivers the 1895 Atlanta Compromise Speech. (From Harlan,
1974). http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/39/
3. W. E. B. DuBois. 1903. W. E. B. DuBois Critiques Booker
T. Washington. (From DuBois, 1903).
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/40
------------------------
TOPIC CHOICE TWO: Getting Women the Vote—Two
Strategies
From Instructions sheet---Sources: Schultz, p. 364–366. Also
see https://www.womenshistory.org/education-
resources/biographies/carrie-chapman-catt on one of the leaders
of the NAWSA; on the NWP’s Alice Paul,
see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GDe4DkZN2A ;
and https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2012/05/alice-paul-
champion-of-woman-suffrage.html. But don’t list or cite them
this way; see proper form below and on top of next page.
(Schultz, 1, p. #). (Michals, 2). (Kean University, 3).
(Graddy, 4).
look something like this, though the order may vary—the list

below continues also on the next page:
Sources
1865. 5th ed.
2. Debra Michals. 2015. Carrie Chapman Catt (1859-1947).
National Women’s History Museum.
https://www.womenshistory.org/education-
resources/biographies/carrie-chapman-catt
p. 3
3. Kean University. March 20, 2014. Alice Paul, Women’s
Rights Activist. [YouTube].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GDe4DkZN2A
4. L. K. Graddy. May 8, 2012. Alice Paul: Champion of
Woman Suffrage. National Museum of American History.
https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2012/05/alice-paul-
champion-of-woman-suffrage.html
------------------------
TOPIC CHOICE THREE: Immigration—Two Opposing
Approaches and Views
From Instructions sheet---Sources: Schultz, p. 334–5, 348–9,
358–9, 408–9. Look for events and issues like the opening of
Ellis Island, the melting pot idea, the Chinese Exclusion Act,
and the National Origins Act. Also see the poem on the Statue
of Liberty
base: https://www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyculture/colossus.htm
. And
see http://college.cengage.com/history/wadsworth_97811333098
88/unprotected/ps/chinese_exclusion_act.htm . But don’t list or
cite them this way; see proper form below.

(Schultz, 1, p. #). (Lazarus, 2). (Chinese Exclusion
Act, 3).
look something like this, though the order may vary:
Sources
1865. 5th ed.
2. Emma Lazarus. Nov. 2, 1883. The New Colossus. National
Park Service—Statue of Liberty.
https://www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyculture/colossus.htm
3. Chinese Exclusion Act. 1882.
http://college.cengage.com/history/wadsworth_9781133309888/
unprotected/ps/chinese_exclusion_act.htm
-----------------------------
Harnessing the Science
of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini
A LUCKY FEW HAVE IT; most of US d o not. A handful
/ of gifted "naturals" simply know how to cap-
/ ture an audience, sway the undecided, and
convert the opposition. Watching these masters of
persuasion work their magic is at once impressive
and frustrating. What's impressive is not just the easy
way they use charisma and eloquence to convince
others to do as they ask. It's also how eager those
others are to do what's requested of them, as if the
persuasion itself were a favor they couldn't wait
to repay.

The frustrating part of the experience is that
these bom persuaders are often unahle to ac-
count for their remarkable skill or pass it on to
others. Their way with people is an art, and
artists as a rule are far hetter at doing than at
explaining. Most of them can't offer much
help to those of us who possess no more
than the ordinary quotient of charisma
and eloquence but who still have to wres-
tle with leadership's fundamental chal-
lenge: getting things done through oth-
ers. That challenge is painfully familiar
to corporate executives, who every day
have to figure out how to motivate
and direct a highly individualistic
workforce. Playing the "Because I'm
the boss" card is out. Even if it
weren't demeaning and demoraliz-
ing for all concerned, it would be
out of place in a world where
cross-functional teams, joint ven-
tures, and intercompany part-
nerships have blurred the lines
of authority. In such an en-
vironment, persuasion skills
exert far greater influence
over others' behavior than
formal power structures do.
72 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW
Jo leader can succeed without mastering the art of persuasion.
But there's hard science in that skill, too, and a large body

3f psychological research suggests there are six basic laws of
rinning friends and influencing people.
OCTOBFR 2001
H a r n e s s i n g t h e S c i e n c e o f P e r s u a s i o n
Which brings us back to where we started. Persuasion
skills may be more necessary than ever, but how can ex-
ecutives acquire them if the most talented practitioners
can't pass them along? By looking to science. For the past
five decades, behavioral scientists have conducted exper-
iments that shed considerable light on the way certain
interactions lead people to concede, comply, or change.
This research shows that persuasion works by appealing
to a limited set of deeply rooted human drives and needs,
and it does so in predictable ways. Persuasion, in other
words, is governed by basic principles that can be taught,
learned, and applied. By mastering these principles, exec-
utives can bring scientific rigor to the business of securing
consensus, cutting deals, and winning concessions. In the
pages that follow, 1 describe six fundamental principles of
persuasion and suggest a few ways that executives can
apply them in their own organizations.
THE PRINCIPLE OF
Liking:
People like those who like them.
THE APPLICATION:

Uncover real similarities and offer
genuine praise.
The retailing phenomenon known as the Tupperware
party is a vivid illustration of this principle in action.
The demonstration party for Tupperware products is
hosted by an individual, almost always a woman, who in-
vites to her home an array of friends, neighbors, and rel-
atives. The guests' affection for their hostess predisposes
them to buy from her, a dynamic that was confirmed by
a 1990 study of purchase decisions made at demonstra-
tion parties. The researchers, Jonathan Frenzen and
Harry Davis, writing in the Journal of Consumer Research,
found that the guests' fondness for their hostess weighed
twice as heavily in their purchase decisions as their re-
gard for the products they bought. So when guests at a
Tupperware party buy something, they aren't just buy-
ing to please themselves. They're buying to please their
hostess as well.
What's true at Tupperware parties is true for business
in general: If you want to influence people, win friends.
How? Controlled research has identified several factors
that reliably increase liking, but two stand out as espe-
Robert B. Cialdini is the Regents' Professor of Psychology
at Arizona State University and the author of Influence:
Science and Practice (Allyn & Bacon, 2001), now in its fourth
edition. Further regularly updated information about the in-
fluence process can be found at www.influenceatwork.com.
cially compelling-similarity and praise. Similarity liter-
ally draws people together. In one experiment, reported
in a 1968 article in the Journal of Personality, participants
stood physically closer to one another after learning that
they shared political beliefs and social values. And in a

1963 article in American Behavioral Scientists, researcher
F. B. Evans used demographic data from insurance com-
pany records to demonstrate that prospects were more
willing to purchase a policy from a salesperson who was
akin to them in age, religion, politics, or even cigarette-
smoking habits.
Managers can use similarities to create bonds with a re-
cent hire, the head of another department, or even a new
boss. Informal conversations during the workday create
an ideal opportunity to discover at least one common
area of enjoyment, be it a hobby, a college basketball
team, or reruns of Seinfeld. The important thing is to es-
tablish the bond early because it creates a presumption
of goodwill and trustworthiness in every subsequent
encounter. It's much easier to build support for a new
project when the people you're trying to persuade are al-
ready inclined in your favor.
Praise, tbe other reliable generator of affection, both
charms and disarms. Sometimes the praise doesn't even
have to be merited. Researchers at the University of
North Carolina writing in the Journal of Experimental So-
cial Psychology found that men felt the greatest regard for
an individual who flattered them unstintingly even if the
comments were untrue. And in their book Interpersonal
Attraction (Addison-Wesley, 1978), Ellen Berscheid and
Elaine Hatfieid Walster presented experimental data
showing that positive remarks about another person's
traits, attitude, or performance reliably generates liking in
retum, as well as willing compliance with the wishes of
the person offering the praise.
Along with cultivating a fruitful relationship, adroit
managers can also use praise to repair one that's damaged
or unproductive. Imagine you're the manager of a good-

sized unit within your organization. Your work frequently
brings you into contact with another manager-call him
Dan - whom you have come to dislike. No matter bow
much you do for him, it's not enough. Worse, he never
seems to believe that you're doing the best you can for
him. Resenting his attitude and his obvious lack of trust
in your abilities and in your good faith, you don't spend
as much time with him as you know you should; in con-
sequence, the performance of both his unit and yours is
deteriorating.
The research on praise points toward a strategy for fix-
ing the relationship. It may be hard to find, but there has
to be something about Dan you can sincerely admire,
whether it's his concern for the people in his department,
his devotion to his family, or simply his work ethic. In
your next encounter with him, make an appreciative
comment about that trait. Make it clear that in this case
Harnessing the Science of Persuasion
at least, you value what tie values. I predict that Dan will
relax his relentless negativity and give you an opening to
convince him of your competence and good intentions.
THE PRINCIPLE OF
Reciprocity:
People repay in kind.
THE APPLICATION:

Give what you want to receive.
Praise is likely to have a wanning and softening effect on
Dan because, ornery as he is, he is still human and subject
to the universal human tendency to treat people the way
they treat him. If you have ever caught yourself smiling at
a coworker just because he or she smiled first, you know
how this principle works.
Charities rely on reciprocity to help them raise funds.
For years, for instance, the Disabled American Veterans
organization, using only a well-crafted fund-raising letter,
garnered a very respectable 18% rate of response to its ap-
peals. But when the group started enclosing a small gift in
the envelope, the response rate nearly doubled to 35%.
The gift - personalized address labels - was extremely
modest, but it wasn't what prospective donors received
that made the difference. It was that they had gotten any-
thing at all.
What works in that letter works at the office, too. It's
more than an effusion of seasonal spirit, of course, that
impels suppliers to shower gifts on purchasing depart-
ments at holiday time. In 1996, purchasing managers ad-
mitted to an interviewer from Inc. magazine that after
having accepted a gift from a supplier, they were willing
to purchase products and services they would have oth-
erwise declined. Gifts also have a startling effect on re-
tention. I have encouraged readers of my book to send me
examples of the principles of influence at work in their
own lives. One reader, an employee of the State of Ore-
gon, sent a letter in which she oftered these reasons for
her commitment to her supervisor:
He gives me and my son gifts for Christmas and gives
me presents on my birthday. There is no promotion for

the type of job I have, and my only choice for one is to
move to another department. But I find myself resist-
ing trying to move. My boss is reaching retirement age,
and I am thinking 1 will be able to move out after he re-
tires....[F]or now, I feel obligated to stay since he has
been so nice to me.
Ultimately, though, gift giving is one of the cruder
applications of the rule of reciprocity. In its more sophis-
ticated uses, it confers a genuine first-mover advantage
on any manager who is trying to foster positive attitudes
and productive persona! relationships in the office:
Managers can elicit the desired behavior from cowork-
ers and employees by displaying it first Whether it's a
sense of trust, a spirit of ctwperation, or a pleasant de-
meanor, leaders should model the behavior they want to
see from others.
The same holds true for managers faced with issues of
information delivery and resource allocation. If you lend
a member of your staff to a colleague who is shorthanded
and staring at a fast-approaching deadline, you will sig-
nificantly increase your chances of gefting help when you
need it. Your odds wil! improve even more if you say,
when your colleague thanks you for the assistance, some-
thing like, "Sure, glad to help. I know how important it is
for me to count on your help when I need it."
THE PRINCIPLE OF I
Social Proof:
People follow the lead of similar others. ,
THE APPLICATION:

Use peer power whenever it's available.
Social creatures that they are, human beings rely heav-
ily on the people around them for cues on how to think,
feel, and act. We know this intuitively, but intuition has
also been confirmed by experiments, such as the one first
described in 1982 in the Journal of Applied Psychology. A
group of researchers went door-to-door in Columbia,
South Carolina, soliciting donations for a charity cam-
paign and displaying a list of neighborhood residents who
had already donated to the cause. The researchers found
that the longer the donor list was, the more likely those
solicited would be to donate as well.
To the people being solicited, the friends' and neigh-
bors' names on the list were a form of socia! evidence
about how they should respond. But the evidence would
not have been nearly as compelling had the names been
those of random strangers. In an experiment from the
1960s, first described in the Journal of Personality and 50-
ciat Psychology, residents of New York City were asked to
retum a lost wallet to its owner. They were highly likely
to aftempt to return the waUet when they !earned that an-
other New Yorker had previous!y aftempted to do so. But
!eaming that someone from a foreign country had tried
to retum the wallet didn't sway their decision one way or
the other.
The lesson for executives ftom these two experiments
is that persuasion can be extremely effective when it
comes from peers. The science supports what most sales
professionals already know: Testimonials from satis-
fied customers work best when the satisfied customer
OCTOBER 2001 75

and the prospective customer share similar circum-
stances. That lesson can help a manager faced with the
task of selling a new corporate initiative. Imagine that
you're trying to streamline your department's work
processes. A group of veteran employees is resisting.
Rather than try to convince the employees of the move's
merits yourself, ask an old-timer who supports the initia-
tive to speak up for it at a team meeting. The compatriot's
testimony stands a much better chance of convincing the
group than yet another speech from the boss. Stated sim-
ply, influence is often best exerted horizontally rather
than vertically.
THE PRINCIPLE OF
Consistency:
People align with their clear commitments.
THE APPLICATION:
Make their commitments active,
public, and voluntary.
Liking is a powerful force, but the work of persuasion in-
volves more than simply making people feel warmly to-
ward you, your idea, or your product. People need not
only to like you but to feel committed to what you want
them to do. Good turns are one reliable way to make peo-
ple feel obligated to you. Another is to win a public com-
mitment from them.
My own research has demonstrated that most people,

once they take a stand or go on record in favor of a posi-
tion, prefer to stick to it. Other studies reinforce that find-
ing and go on to show how even a small, seemingly triv-
ial commitment can have a powerful effect on future
actions. Israeli researchers writing in 1983 in the Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin recounted how they
asked half the residents of a large apartment complex to
sign a petition favoring the establishment of a recreation
center for the handicapped. The cause was good and the
request was small, so almost everyone who was asked
agreed to sign. Tvo weeks later, on National Collection
Day for the Handicapped, all residents of the complex
were approached at home and asked to give to the cause.
A little more than half of those who were not asked to
sign the petition made a contribution. But an astounding
92% of those who did sign donated money. The residents
of the apartment complex felt obligated to live up to their
commitments because those commitments were active,
public, and voluntary. These three features are worth con-
sidering separately.
There's strong empirical evidence to show that a choice
made actively - one that's spoken out loud or written
down or otherwise made explicit - is considerably more
likely to direct someone's future conduct than the same
choice left unspoken. Writing in 1996 in the Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, Delia Cioffi and Randy Gar-
ner described an experiment in which college students in
one group were asked to fill out a printed form saying
they wished to volunteer for an AIDS education project
in the public schools. Students in another group volun-
teered for the same project by leaving blank a form stat-
ing that they didn't want to participate. A few days later,
when the volunteers reported for duty, 74% of those who
showed up were students from the group that signaled

their commitment by filling out the form.
The implications are clear for a manager who wants to
persuade a subordinate to follow some particular course
of action: Get it in writing. Let's suppose you want your
employee to submit reports in a more timely fashion.
Once you believe you've won agreement, ask him to sum-
marize the decision in a memo and send it to you. By
doing so, you'll have greatly increased the odds that he'll
fulfill the commitment because, as a rule, people live up
to what they have written down.
Research into the social dimensions of commitment
suggests that written statements become even more pow-
erful when they're made public. In a classic experiment,
described in 1955 in the Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, college students were asked to estimate the
length of lines projected on a screen. Some students were
asked to write down their choices on a piece of paper, sign
it, and hand the paper to the experimenter. Others wrote
their choices on an erasable slate, then erased the slate im-
mediately. Still others were instructed to keep their deci-
sions to themselves.
The experimenters then presented all three groups
with evidence that their initial choices may have been
wrong. Those who had merely kept their decisions in their
heads were the most likely to reconsider their original es-
timates. More loyal to their first guesses were the students
in the group that had written them down and immedi-
ately erased them. But by a wide margin, the ones most re-
luctant to shift from their original choices were those who
had signed and handed them to the researcher.
This experiment highlights how much most people
wish to appear consistent to others. Consider again the

matter of the employee who has been submitting late re-
ports. Recognizing the power of this desire, you should,
once you've successfully convinced him of the need to be
more timely, reinforce the commitment by making sure it
gets a public airing. One way to do that would be to send
the employee an e-mail that reads, "1 think your plan is
just what we need. I showed it to Diane in manufacturing
and Phil in shipping, and they thought it was right on tar-
get, too." Whatever way such commitments are formal-
ized, they should never be like the New Year's resolutions
people privately make and then abandon with no one the
wiser. They should be publicly made and visibly posted.
More than 300 years ago, Samuel Butler wrote a cou-
plet that explains succinctly why commitments must be
voluntary to be lasting and effective: "He that complies
against his will/Is of his own opinion still." If an undertak-
ing is forced, coerced, or imposed from the outside, it's not
a commitment; it's an unwelcome burden. Think how you
would react if your boss pressured you to donate to the
campaign of a political candidate. Would that make you
more apt to opt for that candidate in the privacy of a vot-
ing booth? Not likely. In fact, in their 1981 book Psycho-
logical Reactance (Academic Press), Sharon S. Brehm and
Jack W. Brehm present data that suggest you'd vote the
opposite way just to express your resentment of the boss's
coercion.
This kind of backlash can occur in the office, too. Let's
return again to that tardy employee. If you want to pro-

duce an enduring change in his behavior, you should
avoid using threats or pressure tactics to gain his compli-
ance. He'd likely view any change in his behavior as the
result of intimidation rather than a personal commitment
to change. A better approach would be to identify some-
thing that the employee genuinely values in the work-
place - high-quality workmanship, perhaps, or team
spirit-and then describe how timely reports are consis-
tent with those values. That gives the employee reasons
for improvement that he can own. And because he owns
them, they'll continue to guide his behavior even when
you're not watching.
THE PRINCIPLE OF
Authority:
People defer to experts.
THE APPLICATION:
Expose your expertise; don't assume
it's self-evident
Tvo thousand years ago, the Roman poet Virgil offered
this simple counsel to those seeking to choose correctly:
"Believe an expert." That may or may not be good advice,
but as a description of what people actually do, it can't be
beaten. For instance, when the news media present an ac-
knowledged expert's views on a topic, the effect on pub-
lic opinion is dramatic. A single expert-opinion news story
in the New York Times is associated with a 2% shift in pub-
lic opinion nationwide, according to a 1993 study de-
scribed in the Public Opinion Quarterly. And researchers
writing in the American Political Science Review in 1987
found that when the expert's view was aired on national
television, public opinion shifted as much as 4%. A cynic

might argue that these findings only illustrate the docile
submissiveness of the public. But a fairer explanation is
that, amid the teeming complexity of contemporary life,
a well-selected expert offers a valuable and efficient short-
cut to good decisions. Indeed, some questions, be they
legal, financial, medical, or technological, require so much
specialized knowledge to answer, we have no choice but
to rely on experts.
Since there's good reason to defer to experts, execu-
tives should take pains to ensure that they establish their
Surprisingly often, people mistakenly
assume that others recognize and
appreciate their experience.
own expertise before they attempt to exert influence. Sur-
prisingly often, people mistakenly assume that others rec-
ognize and appreciate their experience. That's what hap-
pened at a hospital where some colleagues and I were
consulting. The physical therapy staffers were frustrated
because so many of their stroke patients abandoned their
exercise routines as soon as they left the hospital. No mat-
ter how often the staff emphasized the importance of
regular home exercise-it is, in fact, crucial to the process
of regaining independent function - the message just
didn't sink in.
Interviews with some of the patients helped us pin-
point the problem. They were familiar with the back-
ground and training of their physicians, but the patients
knew little about the credentials of the physical therapists
wbo were urging them to exercise. It was a simple matter

to remedy that lack of information: We merely asked the
therapy director to display all the awards, diplomas, and
certifications of her staff on the walls of the therapy
rooms. The result was startling: Exercise compliance
jumped 34% and has never dropped since.
What we found immensely gratifying was not just how
much we increased compliance, but how. We didn't fool
or browbeat any of the patients. We informed them into
compliance. Nothing had to be invented; no time or re-
sources had to be spent in the process. The staff's exper-
tise was real -all we had to do was make it more visible.
The task for managers who want to establish their
claims to expertise is somewhat more difficult. They can't
simply nail their diplomas to the wall and wait for every-
one to notice. A little subtlety is called for. Outside the
United States, it is customary for people to spend time in-
teracting socially before getting down to business for the
first time. Frequently they gather for dinner the night be-
fore their meeting or negotiation. These get-togethers can
OCTOBER 2001 77
Persuasion Experts, Safe at Last
Thanks to several decades of rigorous empirical
research by behavioral scientists, our understand-
ing of the how and why of persuasion has never
been broader, deeper, or more detailed. But these
scientists aren't the first students of the subject.
The history of persuasion studies is an ancient

and honorable one, and it has generated a long
rosterof heroes and martyrs.
A renowned student of social influence,
William McCui re, contends in a chapter of the
Handbook of Social Psychology, 3rd ed. (Oxford
University Press, 1985) that scattered among the
more than four millennia of recorded Western
history are four centuries in which the study of
persuasion flourished as a craft. The first was the
Periclean Age of ancient Athens, the second oc-
curred during the years of the Roman Republic,
the next appeared in the time of the European
Renaissance, and the last extended over the hun-
dred years that have just ended, which witnessed
the advent of large-scale advertising, mformation,
and mass media campaigns. Each of the three
previous centuries of systematic persuasion study
was marked by a flowering of human achieve-
ment that was suddenly cut short when political
authorities had the masters of persuasion killed.
The philosopher Socrates is probably the best
known of the persuasion experts to run afoul of
the powers that be.
Information about the persuasion process is a
threat because it creates a base of power entirely
separate from the one controlled by political au-
thorities. Faced with a rival source of influence,
rulers in previous centuries had few qualms
about eliminating those rare individuals who
truly understood how to marshal forces that
heads of state have never been able to monopo-
lize, such as cleverly crafted language, strategi-
cally placed information, and, most important,
psychological insight.

It would perhaps be expressing too much faith
in human nature to claim that persuasion experts
no longer face a threat from those who wield politi-
cal power. But because the truth about persuasion
is no longer the sole possession of a few brilliant,
inspired individuals, experts in the field can pre-
sumably breathe a littie easier Indeed, since most
people in power are interested in remaining in
power, they're likely to be more interested in ac-
quiring persuasion skills than abolishing them.
make discussions easier and help blunt disagreements-
remember the findings about liking and similarity - and
they can also provide an opportunity to establish exp)er-
tise. Perhaps it's a matter of telling an anecdote about
successfully solving a problem similar to the one that's on
the agenda at the next day's meeting. Or perhaps dinner
is the time to describe years spent mastering a complex
discipline-not in a boastful way but as part of the ordi-
nary give-and-take of conversation.
Granted, there's not always time for lengthy introduc-
tory sessions. But even in the course of the preliminary
conversation that precedes most meetings, there is almost
always an opportunity to touch lightly on your relevant
background and experience as a natural part of a sociable
exchange. This initial disclosure of personal information
gives you a chance to establish expertise early in the
game, so that when the discussion turns to the business at
hand, what you have to say will be accorded the respect it
deserves.
THE PRINCIPLE OF
Scarcity:

People want more ofwhat they can have less of.
THE APPLICATION:
Highlight unique benefits and
exclusive information.
Study after study shows that items and opportunities are
seen to be more valuable as they become less available.
That's a tremendously useful piece of information for
managers. They can harness the scarcity principle with
the organizational equivalents of limited-time, limited-
supply, and one-of-a-kind offers. Honestly informing a
coworker of a closing window of opportunity-the chance
to get the boss's ear before she leaves for an extended va-
cation, perhaps-can mobilize action dramatically.
Managers can learn from retailers how to frame their
offers not in terms of what people stand to gain but in
terms ofwhat they stand to lose if they don't act on the in-
formation. The power of "loss language" was demon-
strated in a 1988 study of California home owners written
up in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Half were told
that if they fully insulated their homes, they would save
a certain amount of money each day. The other half were
told that if they failed to insulate, they would lose that
amount each day. Significantly more people insulated
their homes when exposed to the loss language. The same
phenomenon occurs in business. According t o a 1994
study in the journal Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, potential losses figure far more heavily
in managers' decision making than potential gains.

In framing their offers, executives should also remem-
ber that exclusive information is more persuasive than
widely available data. A doctoral student of mine, Amram
Knishinsky, wrote his 1982 dissertation on the purchase
decisions of wholesale beef buyers. He observed that they
more than doubled their orders when they were told that,
because of certain weather conditions overseas, there was
likely to be a scarcity of foreign beef in the near future.
But their orders increased 600% when they were in-
formed that no one else had that information yet.
The persuasive power of exclusivity can be harnessed
by any manager who comes into possession of informa-
tion that's not broadly available and that supports an idea
or initiative he or she would like the organization to
adopt. The next time that kind of information crosses
your desk, round up your organization's key players. The
information itself may seem dull, but exclusivity will give
it a special sheen. Push it across your desk and say, "I just
got this report today. It won't be distributed until next
week, but I want to give you an early look at what it
shows." Then watch your listeners lean forward.
Allow me to stress here a point that should be obvious.
No offer of exclusive information, no exhortation to act
now or miss this opportunity forever should be made un-
less it is genuine. Deceiving colleagues into compliance is
not only ethically objectionable, it's foolhardy. If the de-
ception is detected-and it …
The Ethical Superiority and Inevitabihty

of Participatory Management
as an Organizational System
Denis Collins
School of Business, Uniuersity of Wisconsin-Madison,
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
This article asks us to consider, on ethical grounds, the
superiority of participative managementover more autocratic
alternatives. The author questions the predominance of the
autocratic
choice in both management practice and theory. Applying the
examples of both political and
economic history, the author challenges why management seems
to be the last bastion of the
autocratic choice. Also based on these examples, the author
questions how long the autocratic
tradition in management can last.
Bart Victor
Abstract
During the heady revolutionary days of the 1960s, Slater and
Bennis (1964) declared the inevitability of democracy at the
workplace. Twenty-five years later, in a retrospection of that
article, the authors claimed that they were right (Slater and
Bennis 1990). Unfortunately, the data do not support their
claim (Lawler et al. 1992). Nonetheless, workplace democracy
is inevitable.
This article argues in favor of the inevitability of participa-
tory management, one form of workplace democracy, on the
basis of its coherence to the social philosophical assumptions
about human nature that underlie the forms of political
arrangements (democracy) and economic arrangements
(mixed economy) in the United States. These communitarian

philosophical assumptions have been thoroughly argued in
the political science and economic literature to be ethically
superior to other sets of social philosophical assumptions
that underlie authoritarianism and libertarianism. Currently,
organization theory is approximately 200 years behind this
literature. Persons who experience significant benefits as a
result of the central position of "liberty" in the social
philosophical assumptions of democracy and capitalism tend
to design organizational systems that significantly restrict the
liberty of their employees.
The current push for more democratic features is coming
from organization theorists doing work on corporate culture,
total quality management, gainsharing, and other systems of
management that encourage decentralization, and from busi-
ness ethics scholars doing work on the societal accountability
of organizations. The very slow rate of evolution to work-
place democracy is primarily attributed to the central role of
the power elite. Whereas the American political and eco-
nomic revolutionaries came from within the power elite of
their times that is not yet the case for workplace democracy
advocates.
{Participatory Management; Organization Theory, Busi-
ness Ethics; Political Theory)
In reflecting over the past 40 years of management
science, the renowned management scientist/philoso-
pher C. West Churchman (1994, p. 99) concluded:
As the first editor-in-chief of Management Science, I ex-
pressed my ambition for the society (TIMS) and its journal.
My notion was that a society and journal in the subject of a
science of management would investigate how humans can
manage their affairs well. For me, "well" means "ethically,"
or in the best interest of humanity in a world of filthy

oppression and murder (I'm a philosopher and therefore have
a philosophical bias, the same bias Plato had when he wrote
The Republic). I find that 40 years later management scientists
have been inventing all kinds of mathematical models and
novelties (management by objectives, game theory, artificial
intelligence, expert systems, TQM, chaos theory), and none of
these has contributed much to the ethical benefit of human
beings. Hence, in 1993, we are still waiting for a science of
management to emerge, although there are some lights at the
end of the tunnel.
A solution to the management science ethics prob-
lem raised by Churchman and the new organizational
paradigm shifts advocated by Daft and Lewin (1993)
can be found by uniting the social philosophical as-
1047-7039/97/0805/0489/$05.00
Copyright ® 1997. Institute for Operations Research
and the Management Sciences ORGANIZATION
SCIENCE/VOI. 8, No. 5, September-October 1997 489
DENIS COLLINS The Ethical Superiority and Inevitability of
Participatory Management
Table 1 Ethical Foundations of Poiiticai, Economic, and
Organization Theories
Authoritarianism Communitarianism Libertarianism
Poiiticai Theory
Example
Role of Sovereign
Role of Subjects

Economic Theory
Example
Role of Sovereign
Role of Subjects
Organization Theory
Example
Role of Sovereign
Role of Subjects
Dictatorship
Government commands in all
matters
Citizens obey commands for
peace
Planned economy
matters
Managers obey commands for
GNP
Traditional management
Managers command in all
matters
Employees obey commands
for wages

Representative democracy
Government establishes goals and
monitors for harms and deviances
Interest groups pursue seif, group, and
national interests
Mixed economy
Government establishes goais and
monitors for harms and deviances •
Managers pursue self, group, and
national interests
Participatory management
Managers establish goals and monitor for
harms and deviances
Employees pursue self, group, and
company interests
Direct democracy
Government monitors for harms
Citizens pursue self-interests
Market economy
Managers pursue self-interests
Self-management

Managers monitor for harms
Employees pursue self-interests
sumptions of organization theory with those of political
and economic theory. The United States has been an
international force in persuading other nations to adopt
a democratic political system and a mixed economy.
The worldwide trend during the 1980s and 1990s is
away from dictatorships and toward democracy and
mixed economies. As shown in Table 1, a range of
political arrangements parallels a range of economic
arrangements. These parallels are based on shared
social philosophies about the relationship between
sovereign and subjects in the political and economic
realms. Historically, the authoritarian model has been
dismissed from both political and economic discussions
in the United States. Currently, the framework for
both political and economic discussions is defined by
communitarians and libertarians.
Some of the fundamental social philosophical as-
sumptions about human nature and social organization
made by political and economic theorists, and embod-
ied in some of our most significant political and eco-
nomic institutions, are diametrically opposed to some
of the assumptions about human nature and social
organization made by organization theorists and em-
bodied in a large number of organizational structures.
A growing stream of political, economic, and organiza-
tion theorists have pointed out this contradiction, in-
cluding Adam Smith (1976b) in The Wealth of Nations.
Smith feared that business owners would be tempted
to apply division of labor to an unethical extreme,
where the worker "becomes as stupid and ignorant as

it is possible for a human creature to become" (1976b,
vol. ii, p. 303). In the 1800s, Alexis de Tocqueville
(1945) noted that democracy in America could be un-
dermined by the developing aristocracy being estab-
lished in industrial organizations. Karl Marx (1964) was
enraged by the meaningless lives of alienated workers.
These criticisms by conservative and liberal political
and economic theorists found a home in organization
theory among prominent human relations and human
resource management writers who maintained to vari-
ous degrees that nonmanagement employees should be
active participants in an organization's decision-making
process. Thus, significant progress toward the institu-
tionalization of participatory management—a system
of management whereby nonmanagement employees
significantly influence organizational decisions—has
been made over the past century.
Unfortunately, the original ethical foundation for
the superiority of participatory management over top-
down management has been discounted by organiza-
tion theorists and managers in favor of other argu-
ments, particularly the economic efficiency argument
that participatory management is superior to top-down
management because it increases employee productiv-
ity and firm profitability. However, the empirical re-
search on participatory management provides mixed
findings (Cotton et al. 1988, Wagner 1994). For in-
stance, managers often note that there is significant
management pressure to abandon participatory man-
agement mechanisms when it becomes apparent that
490 ORGANIZATION S C I E N C E / V O L 8, No. 5,
September-October 1997

DENIS COLLINS The Ethical Superiority and Inevitabitity of
employee involvement is not increasing productivity or
profitability to the high degree anticipated (Collins
1995, Likert 1967). These managers conclude that the
economic justifications were highly exaggerated or sim-
ply false and revert back to top-down management
styles. Wagner (1994) is an example of an organization
theorist reaching such a conclusion. After conducting a
meta-analytical reassessment of research on participa-
tory management that revealed "average size" im-
provements, Wagner noted that "the conclusions of
this article give cause to question the practical signifi-
cance of participation as a means of influencing perfor-
mance or satisfaction at work" (p. 327; italics added).
A result of these sentiments is that the number of firms
using participatory management systems remains very
modest (Lawler et al. 1992).
Managers might be more likely to explore why par-
ticipatory management is not working and to make
appropriate corrections rather than abandon it if the
superiority of participatory management had an ethical
foundation in addition to an economic one. This article
contributes to the growing volume of writing on partici-
patory management by developing a useful framework
that links the ethical foundations of political and eco-
nomic theory with organization theory. The core argu-
ments are:
(1) Communitarian and libertarian forms of social
arrangements have been well established in both politi-
cal and economic theory to be ethically superior to
authoritarian forms of social arrangements.

(2) In political and economic theory, communitarian-
ism represents the status quo and libertarianism offers
ethically legitimate challenges to the status quo.
(3) Organization theory is still dominated by an
authoritarian model with communitarianism offered as
a pragmatic (rather than ethical) challenge to the sta-
tus quo.
(4) From an ethical perspective, the authoritarian
model should have been dismissed long ago and the
current debate in organization theory should consist of
libertarian challenges to communitarian forms of orga-
nizational structures and policies.
Several admirable efforts have been made to link
organization theory with political theory, particularly
among scholars writing on workplace democracy and
employee rights (Bowles and Gintis 1993, Dahl 1985,
Ewing 1977, Pateman 1970, Scott and Hart 1971). This
article develops a much broader social philosophical
framework into which these other works can fit.
An issue of Organization Science (Volume 4, Number
2) was chosen randomly to determine how the frame-
work would enhance that issue's articles. First, the
ethical foundation for each article was implicit rather
than explicit. The research articles on organizational
culture (Marcoulides and Heck 1993) and employee
participation (Shetzer 1993) would have been particu-
larly strengthened if the authors' social philosophical
assumptions had been more explicit and linked to the
Table 1 framework developed here. Second, in the
other articles, the researchers generally assumed the

authoritarian model of organizational relationships.
Research articles on takeovers (D'Aveni and Kesner
1993), organizational expansion (Mitchell and Singh
1993), formulation processes and tactics (Nutt 1993),
international business negotiations (Weiss 1993),
strategic alliances (Parkhe 1993), and risk taking
(Hoskisson et al. 1993) were all related to power issues
based on theoretical models that assumed managers
were authoritarian sovereigns and nonmanagement
employees were inconsequential subjects. All these au-
thors could have benefitted by developing their theo-
ries and discussing their findings in relation to the
communitarian model.
Scholars seeking to create more humane and fair
organizations should ground their critiques and coun-
terproposals within the same social philosophical
framework that dominates the nation's political and
economic debates. To advance this line of inquiry,
three contentious assumptions that underlie this article
are elaborated: (1) it is appropriate to apply the social
philosophical assumptions of political and economic
theory to organization theory; (2) congruence among
the social philosophical assumptions of political, eco-
nomic, and organization theory is highly desirable; and
(3) ethical arguments are superior to economic argu-
ments. Then the evolution of current political and
economic debates is examined. The congruence be-
tween political and economic social philosophies is
described and they are linked to organization theory.
Three Key Theoretical Assumptions
Appropriateness of Analogy Between Political / Economic
Systems and Organizational Systems
The first key assumption is that organizational systems
are analogous to political and economic systems. Rea-

soning by analogy is a very useful process of under-
standing one concept by drawing comparisons with
other concepts that are similar but not identical to it in
several key attributes. The debatable issue is whether
the concepts being compared are similar in important
ways (leading to a good analogy) or trivial ways (lead-
ing to a false analogy), and whether the significant
differences are compelling enough to dismiss the anal-
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOL 8, No. 5, September-October
1997 491
DENIS COLLINS The Ethicat Superiority and Inevitabitity of
Ogy. For instance, there are significant differences in
purpose between political systems (maintaining peace
and justice) and economic systems (increasing GNP).
Nonetheless, political concepts are often applied to
understanding and developing policy recommendations
for economic systems, and economic concepts are often
applied to understanding and developing policy recom-
mendations for political systems, because the two sys-
tems share some significant similarities, as discussed
subsequently.
In his classic article, March (1962, p. 663) main-
tained that "the organization is properly viewed as a
political system and that viewing the firm as such a
system both clarifies conventional economic theory of
the firm and (in conjunction with recent developments
in theoretical languages) suggests some ways of dealing
with classical problems in the theory of political sys-
tems generally." He highlighted three main organiza-

tional concerns that are central to political theory: (1)
conflict resolution, (2) preference ordering, and (3)
allocation of scarce resources. These three concepts
are interrelated, as many conflicts are about prefer-
ence ordering and resource allocations. Such conflicts
occur with both internal (employees) and external
(community leaders, public interest groups) stakehold-
ers. March's article is primarily concerned with the
former. According to March, it is wrong to assume that
"conflict is resolved by the employment contract,
or—more generally—by the factor prices and that the
result is a joint preference ordering of some sort or
other" (p. 669).
Political concepts have entered the organization the-
ory literature in the areas of political coalitions at work
(Astley and Zajac 1991), power (Pfeffer 1992),
Machiavellianism (Buskirk 1974, Collins 1992, Jay
1967), and workplace justice (Sheppard et al. 1992).
Zahra (1985) reports that 82% of managers surveyed
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "effective
executives must be successful company politicians."
Political behaviors can be very dysfunctional (Ashforth
and Lee 1990). The business sections of book stores
are filled with intriguing stories of political problems
that have led to the downfall of business leaders,
managers, and organizations.
A key similarity among political, economic, and orga-
nizational systems is the way in which control is exer-
cised. As shown in Table 1, this is the sovereign/sub-
ject relationship. How should people be governed and
conflicts resolved? People can either be trusted and
extended significant liberties, or not be trusted and
made subject to extensive power of a sovereign. If
people can be trusted to behave appropriately when

granted political and economic liberty, why should they
not be trusted to behave appropriately when granted
liberty within organizations? Why should organizations
be exempt from the normal rules of morality?
Importantly, each of the social philosophical as-
sumptions, when applied to different systems, results in
different techniques. For instance. Table 1 does not
imply that because political authoritarians may im-
prison dissidents organizational authoritarians also im-
prison dissidents. Instead, both political and organiza-
tional authoritarians command in all matters, though
the techniques for carrying out their commands differ
with the contextual features of their unique operating
systems. All too often, managers, organization theo-
rists, and other business scholars readily dismiss orga-
nizational communitarianism on the grounds that rep-
resentative democracy is very messy (Jensen 1993).
However, Table 1 does not suggest that the specific
technique of representative democracy be imposed on
organizations. Instead, it suggests that participatory
management and representative democracy share many
social philosophical assumptions.
Desirability of Congruence among Political, Economic,
and Organizational Assumptions
The second key assumption is that the social philo-
sophical assumptions of political systems, economic
systems, and organizational systems should be similar.
The desire for value congruence and the creation of a
"well-ordered society" is the foundation of moral
philosophy. The justifications for value congruences,
on both the individual and societal levels of analysis,
include the unity of self, the essentiality to coopera-
tion, and the creation of stability. John Rawls is just

one of a great number of philosophers who have ar-
gued this point. In his modern classic A Theory of
Justice, Rawls—following in the philosophical tradition
of Aristotle, Kant, and Mill—argues that the individual
goal is "the unity of the self," whereby people free of
contradictions and hypocrisis pursue a rational plan
that fits within a personal and societal definition of
"the good" (1971, p. 561). Value consistency among
social systems is the trademark of a well-ordered soci-
ety, and value contradictions are the seeds of individ-
ual and social unrest. Value congruence is often essen-
tial for cooperation as there must be some agreement
on basic rules and shared values for cooperation to
occur. It thus leads to more stable relationships and a
more stable society.
Importantly, not all value congruence is acceptable.
Philosophers assume there is a set of values, or a range
of acceptable values, that is indeed better than other
492 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 8, No. 5, September-
October 1997
DENIS COLLINS The Ethical Superiority and Ineuitabitity of
values. More than 2,000 years ago Aristotle argued that
life has an ultimate purpose—happiness—which is
achieved through a combination of intellectual virtue,
moral virtue, health, and wealth. Specifically what
should be included in moral virtue has been a subject
of significant philosophical debate. Aristotle's list of
virtues has been criticized, defended, and amended.

For example, business ethicist Robert Solomon
(1993) maintains that the basic virtues of business
include justice, honesty, fairness, trust, toughness,
friendliness, honor, loyalty, shame, competition, caring,
and compassion. Freeman and Gilbert (1988) provide a
slightly different list of socially acceptable values under
the heading of "common morality," which include
promise keeping, nonmalevolence, mutual aid, respect
for persons, and respect for property. The values of
freedom, fairness, and security are at the heart of
Donaldson's (1989, p. 81) list of fundamental interna-
tional rights that multinationals must respect.
Just as important, not all values in these value sets
are equal. Solomon (1993), following in the steps of
Aristotle, is in very crowded company when claiming
that justice is the ultimate virtue, both in corporate life
and life in general. Hence both competition and com-
passion are to be obtained in reference to justice. As
Rawls (1971, p. 4-5) argues, "a society is well-ordered
when it is not only designed to advance the good of its
members but when it is also effectively regulated by a
public conception of justice." Justice is not simply an
attribute of government; it is central to the operation
of all systems of organization. Within both for-profit
and nonprofit organizations, justice considerations
weigh heavily in making, applying, and interpreting
policies and rules (Sheppard et al. 1992). As business
ethicists have long argued, business activities should be
evaluated according to these widely held values, which
leads into the third assumption of this article.
The Superiority of Ethical Arguments over Economic
Arguments
The third key assumption is that ethical arguments are
superior to economic ones. This is such a well-accepted

assumption in philosophy that one is hard pressed to
find an article in the past 15 years of Joumal of
Business Ethics or the past 5 years of Business Ethics
Quarterly that comes close to arguing the reverse, that
economic arguments are superior to ethical ones. How-
ever, one is hard pressed to find scholarly articles in
economics and business journals in which economic
evidence is discounted on moral grounds. Business
ethicists have attributed the latter phenomenon to a
phase in the evolution of ideas that is probably ending.
According to Shepard et al. (1995, p. 577), pre-
industrial society operated under a moral unity
paradigm where "business activity was linked to soci-
ety's values of morality." With the rise of industrialism,
business activity was "freed from moral constraints by
the alleged 'invisible hand' of efficient markets (the
amoral theory of business)," but "[now] some variant
of the moral unity paradigm may be recurring in post-
industrial society." The moral unity paradigm has been
the dominant one for most of the history of civilization,
is central to the field of business ethics and, as argued
with the preceding assumptions, is making some head-
way in the field of organization theory.
Economic techniques and data are ultimately justi-
fied according to some moral assessment and princi-
ples (Hausman and McPherson 1993). In addition, just
as not all value sets are equal, not all arguments based
on ethics are equal. It has been long established that
deontological and utilitarian ethical theories take
precedence over egoism, social group relativisim, and
cultural relativism (Brady and Dunn 1995). Lower level
ethical theories are often justified according to higher
level ethical theories. This ranking of ethical theories is
made explicit in Kohlberg's (1981) stages of moral

development. One need only go back to the original
writings of Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, to
understand the appropriate relationship between eco-
nomic and ethical arguments. The economic arguments
in The Wealth of Nations are justified by the ethical
arguments found in both The Wealth of Nations and
The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Collins 1988, Werhane
1991). Smith justifies the individual pursuit of eco-
nomic self-interests on the grounds that it will increase
a nation's standard of living, and thus afford the great-
est good for the greatest number of people (utilitarian
reasoning). In addition. Smith explicitly assumes that
individuals restrain their self-interested tendencies be-
cause of sympathy, respect for others, and avoidance of
harm (deontological reasons). Thus, economics is an
essential source of information used in making deci-
sions, but economic decisions are evaluated according
to deontological and utilitarian moral principles.
From a historical perspective, the social philosophi-
cal assumptions of much of organization theory and
practice remain 200 to 300 years behind the social
philosophical assumptions that generated the new gov-
ernance process implemented as the United States.
Organization theory has much to gain from historical
analysis (Kieser 1994). The following two sections pro-
vide a brief summary of historical developments in
political and economic theory that can be compared
with the current status of organization theory.
1997 493
DENtS COLLINS The Ethicat Superiority and Inevitability of

Political Debates in the United States
The Dismissal of Authoritarianism
Opposition to authoritarian political philosophy has a
long history in the United States. Many of the initial
waves of European immigrants who traveled across the
Atlantic Ocean to settle in the New World were fleeing
from political and religious oppression. During the late
sixteenth century, Oueen Elizabeth sought to unify the
subjects of England under the Anglican Church. By act
of Parliament, all clergy of England were made to
accept particular religious creeds, such as the Book of
Common Prayer, Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Oueen's
religious sovereignty. Those who did not accept these
creeds were persecuted; publications were censored,
assemblies disbanded, congregations fined, preachers
imprisoned, and property confiscated (Braehlow 1988,
Cragg 1957, Durant and Durant 1961). Failure to ad-
here to a particular religious doctrine—whether Angli-
canism in England, Catholicism in France, or
Lutheranism in Germany, Denmark, and Sweden—
could result in torture and exile. Religious dissenters
could not hold political or military office, or enter most
universities.
In addition to those seeking political and religious
freedom, immigrants to the New World included peas-
ants, fortune hunters, and criminals. Many of the early
political debates within and between groups of settlers
concerned the degree of allegiance the group should
maintain to its European sovereign. Who ought to
govern life in the colonies: Spain, the Netherlands,
France, England, or the colonists themselves? For bet-
ter or worse, military victories by the British against
their European rivals centralized British sovereignship

until the Revolutionary War.
Many, but not all, colonists preferred self-rule. In
the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson
referred to King George of England as a despot and
fyrant who refused to allow the colonists to establish
their own legislative and judicial bodies. Without the
consent of colonial leaders, the king imposed an army
and police force, collected taxes, determined trade
policies, and, according to the Declaration, "plundered
our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people." In declaring their
freedom from generations of rule by monarchs and
nobles, the colonial political leaders were faced with
with the same problem from which many of them or
their ancestors had fled: how to maintain peace among
a population of 2,500,000 whose members were of a
variefy of religions intolerant of other religions, most
notably Anglicanism, Puritanism, and Presbyterianism
(Perry 1944).
Both libertarians and communitarians credit John
Locke's (1960) Two Treatises of Government for estab-
lishing the legitimacy of government based on the
consent of the governed and providing the ethical basis
for defending the structures, processes, and policies of
democratic governments (Lodge 1976, Rothbard 1978).
Locke argued that desirable ends can be achieved, and
undesirable ends avoided, when there is only one
sovereign group and that sovereign's law-making ability
is based on the consent of the governed. According to
Locke, God created a humanify that is free and ratio-
nal. If no system of central control existed, people
(other than a few degenerates) would restrain their
behavior according to their reason, which dictates that
they should not harm others. Therefore, peace could

be maintained in civil sociefy if the sovereign allowed
its subjects extensive liberties. Subjects could be trusted
to pursue their own self-interests in a manner that
would improve the general welfare. The sovereign, who
should be accountable to the law, could continue to
make and maintain laws on the condition that those
laws be in the public interest and have the consent of
the subjects. A lack of consent by subjects would un-
dermine the legitimacy of the sovereign to govern. The
overriding principle of government should be the pro-
tection of individual liberfy.
Thus, the U.S. Constitution established minimal gov-
ernment. Persons fulfilling the role of sovereign were
accountable to the consent of the governed and
tremendous restrictions were placed on government's
use of power over individuals. The Bill of Rights was
amended to the Constitution to further limit govern-
mental powers. Individuals …
The Ethical Superiority and Inevitabihty
of Participatory Management
as an Organizational System
Denis Collins
School of Business, Uniuersity of Wisconsin-Madison,
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
This article asks us to consider, on ethical grounds, the
superiority of participative managementover more autocratic
alternatives. The author questions the predominance of the
autocratic
choice in both management practice and theory. Applying the
examples of both political and

economic history, the author challenges why management seems
to be the last bastion of the
autocratic choice. Also based on these examples, the author
questions how long the autocratic
tradition in management can last.
Bart Victor
Abstract
During the heady revolutionary days of the 1960s, Slater and
Bennis (1964) declared the inevitability of democracy at the
workplace. Twenty-five years later, in a retrospection of that
article, the authors claimed that they were right (Slater and
Bennis 1990). Unfortunately, the data do not support their
claim (Lawler et al. 1992). Nonetheless, workplace democracy
is inevitable.
This article argues in favor of the inevitability of participa-
tory management, one form of workplace democracy, on the
basis of its coherence to the social philosophical assumptions
about human nature that underlie the forms of political
arrangements (democracy) and economic arrangements
(mixed economy) in the United States. These communitarian
philosophical assumptions have been thoroughly argued in
the political science and economic literature to be ethically
superior to other sets of social philosophical assumptions
that underlie authoritarianism and libertarianism. Currently,
organization theory is approximately 200 years behind this
literature. Persons who experience significant benefits as a
result of the central position of "liberty" in the social
philosophical assumptions of democracy and capitalism tend
to design organizational systems that significantly restrict the
liberty of their employees.
The current push for more democratic features is coming
from organization theorists doing work on corporate culture,

total quality management, gainsharing, and other systems of
management that encourage decentralization, and from busi-
ness ethics scholars doing work on the societal accountability
of organizations. The very slow rate of evolution to work-
place democracy is primarily attributed to the central role of
the power elite. Whereas the American political and eco-
nomic revolutionaries came from within the power elite of
their times that is not yet the case for workplace democracy
advocates.
{Participatory Management; Organization Theory, Busi-
ness Ethics; Political Theory)
In reflecting over the past 40 years of management
science, the renowned management scientist/philoso-
pher C. West Churchman (1994, p. 99) concluded:
As the first editor-in-chief of Management Science, I ex-
pressed my ambition for the society (TIMS) and its journal.
My notion was that a society and journal in the subject of a
science of management would investigate how humans can
manage their affairs well. For me, "well" means "ethically,"
or in the best interest of humanity in a world of filthy
oppression and murder (I'm a philosopher and therefore have
a philosophical bias, the same bias Plato had when he wrote
The Republic). I find that 40 years later management scientists
have been inventing all kinds of mathematical models and
novelties (management by objectives, game theory, artificial
intelligence, expert systems, TQM, chaos theory), and none of
these has contributed much to the ethical benefit of human
beings. Hence, in 1993, we are still waiting for a science of
management to emerge, although there are some lights at the
end of the tunnel.
A solution to the management science ethics prob-
lem raised by Churchman and the new organizational

paradigm shifts advocated by Daft and Lewin (1993)
can be found by uniting the social philosophical as-
1047-7039/97/0805/0489/$05.00
Copyright ® 1997. Institute for Operations Research
and the Management Sciences ORGANIZATION
SCIENCE/VOI. 8, No. 5, September-October 1997 489
DENIS COLLINS The Ethical Superiority and Inevitability of
Table 1 Ethical Foundations of Poiiticai, Economic, and
Organization Theories
Authoritarianism Communitarianism Libertarianism
Poiiticai Theory
Example
Role of Sovereign
Role of Subjects
Economic Theory
Example
Role of Sovereign
Role of Subjects
Organization Theory
Example
Role of Sovereign
Role of Subjects

Dictatorship
matters
Citizens obey commands for
peace
Planned economy
matters
Managers obey commands for
GNP
Traditional management
Managers command in all
matters
Employees obey commands
for wages
Representative democracy
Government establishes goals and
monitors for harms and deviances
Interest groups pursue seif, group, and
national interests
Mixed economy
Government establishes goais and
monitors for harms and deviances •

Managers pursue self, group, and
national interests
Participatory management
Managers establish goals and monitor for
harms and deviances
Employees pursue self, group, and
company interests
Direct democracy
Citizens pursue self-interests
Market economy
Managers pursue self-interests
Self-management
Managers monitor for harms
Employees pursue self-interests
sumptions of organization theory with those of political
and economic theory. The United States has been an
international force in persuading other nations to adopt
a democratic political system and a mixed economy.
The worldwide trend during the 1980s and 1990s is
away from dictatorships and toward democracy and
mixed economies. As shown in Table 1, a range of
political arrangements parallels a range of economic
arrangements. These parallels are based on shared

social philosophies about the relationship between
sovereign and subjects in the political and economic
realms. Historically, the authoritarian model has been
dismissed from both political and economic discussions
in the United States. Currently, the framework for
both political and economic discussions is defined by
communitarians and libertarians.
Some of the fundamental social philosophical as-
sumptions about human nature and social organization
made by political and economic theorists, and embod-
ied in some of our most significant political and eco-
nomic institutions, are diametrically opposed to some
of the assumptions about human nature and social
organization made by organization theorists and em-
bodied in a large number of organizational structures.
A growing stream of political, economic, and organiza-
tion theorists have pointed out this contradiction, in-
cluding Adam Smith (1976b) in The Wealth of Nations.
Smith feared that business owners would be tempted
to apply division of labor to an unethical extreme,
where the worker "becomes as stupid and ignorant as
it is possible for a human creature to become" (1976b,
vol. ii, p. 303). In the 1800s, Alexis de Tocqueville
(1945) noted that democracy in America could be un-
dermined by the developing aristocracy being estab-
lished in industrial organizations. Karl Marx (1964) was
enraged by the meaningless lives of alienated workers.
These criticisms by conservative and liberal political
and economic theorists found a home in organization
theory among prominent human relations and human
resource management writers who maintained to vari-
ous degrees that nonmanagement employees should be
active participants in an organization's decision-making
process. Thus, significant progress toward the institu-

tionalization of participatory management—a system
of management whereby nonmanagement employees
significantly influence organizational decisions—has
been made over the past century.
Unfortunately, the original ethical foundation for
the superiority of participatory management over top-
down management has been discounted by organiza-
tion theorists and managers in favor of other argu-
ments, particularly the economic efficiency argument
that participatory management is superior to top-down
management because it increases employee productiv-
ity and firm profitability. However, the empirical re-
search on participatory management provides mixed
findings (Cotton et al. 1988, Wagner 1994). For in-
stance, managers often note that there is significant
management pressure to abandon participatory man-
agement mechanisms when it becomes apparent that
490 ORGANIZATION S C I E N C E / V O L 8, No. 5,
September-October 1997
DENIS COLLINS The Ethical Superiority and Inevitabitity of
employee involvement is not increasing productivity or
profitability to the high degree anticipated (Collins
1995, Likert 1967). These managers conclude that the
economic justifications were highly exaggerated or sim-
ply false and revert back to top-down management
styles. Wagner (1994) is an example of an organization
theorist reaching such a conclusion. After conducting a
meta-analytical reassessment of research on participa-
tory management that revealed "average size" im-

provements, Wagner noted that "the conclusions of
this article give cause to question the practical signifi-
cance of participation as a means of influencing perfor-
mance or satisfaction at work" (p. 327; italics added).
A result of these sentiments is that the number of firms
using participatory management systems remains very
modest (Lawler et al. 1992).
Managers might be more likely to explore why par-
ticipatory management is not working and to make
appropriate corrections rather than abandon it if the
superiority of participatory management had an ethical
foundation in addition to an economic one. This article
contributes to the growing volume of writing on partici-
patory management by developing a useful framework
that links the ethical foundations of political and eco-
nomic theory with organization theory. The core argu-
ments are:
(1) Communitarian and libertarian forms of social
arrangements have been well established in both politi-
cal and economic theory to be ethically superior to
authoritarian forms of social arrangements.
(2) In political and economic theory, communitarian-
ism represents the status quo and libertarianism offers
ethically legitimate challenges to the status quo.
(3) Organization theory is still dominated by an
authoritarian model with communitarianism offered as
a pragmatic (rather than ethical) challenge to the sta-
tus quo.
(4) From an ethical perspective, the authoritarian
model should have been dismissed long ago and the
current debate in organization theory should consist of

libertarian challenges to communitarian forms of orga-
nizational structures and policies.
Several admirable efforts have been made to link
organization theory with political theory, particularly
among scholars writing on workplace democracy and
employee rights (Bowles and Gintis 1993, Dahl 1985,
Ewing 1977, Pateman 1970, Scott and Hart 1971). This
article develops a much broader social philosophical
framework into which these other works can fit.
An issue of Organization Science (Volume 4, Number
2) was chosen randomly to determine how the frame-
work would enhance that issue's articles. First, the
ethical foundation for each article was implicit rather
than explicit. The research articles on organizational
culture (Marcoulides and Heck 1993) and employee
participation (Shetzer 1993) would have been particu-
larly strengthened if the authors' social philosophical
assumptions had been more explicit and linked to the
Table 1 framework developed here. Second, in the
other articles, the researchers generally assumed the
authoritarian model of organizational relationships.
Research articles on takeovers (D'Aveni and Kesner
1993), organizational expansion (Mitchell and Singh
1993), formulation processes and tactics (Nutt 1993),
international business negotiations (Weiss 1993),
strategic alliances (Parkhe 1993), and risk taking
(Hoskisson et al. 1993) were all related to power issues
based on theoretical models that assumed managers
were authoritarian sovereigns and nonmanagement
employees were inconsequential subjects. All these au-
thors could have benefitted by developing their theo-
ries and discussing their findings in relation to the
communitarian model.

Scholars seeking to create more humane and fair
organizations should ground their critiques and coun-
terproposals within the same social philosophical
framework that dominates the nation's political and
economic debates. To advance this line of inquiry,
three contentious assumptions that underlie this article
are elaborated: (1) it is appropriate to apply the social
philosophical assumptions of political and economic
theory to organization theory; (2) congruence among
the social philosophical assumptions of political, eco-
nomic, and organization theory is highly desirable; and
(3) ethical arguments are superior to economic argu-
ments. Then the evolution of current political and
economic debates is examined. The congruence be-
tween political and economic social philosophies is
described and they are linked to organization theory.
Three Key Theoretical Assumptions
Appropriateness of Analogy Between Political / Economic
Systems and Organizational Systems
The first key assumption is that organizational systems
are analogous to political and economic systems. Rea-
soning by analogy is a very useful process of under-
standing one concept by drawing comparisons with
other concepts that are similar but not identical to it in
several key attributes. The debatable issue is whether
the concepts being compared are similar in important
ways (leading to a good analogy) or trivial ways (lead-
ing to a false analogy), and whether the significant
differences are compelling enough to dismiss the anal-
1997 491

DENIS COLLINS The Ethicat Superiority and Inevitabitity of
Ogy. For instance, there are significant differences in
purpose between political systems (maintaining peace
and justice) and economic systems (increasing GNP).
Nonetheless, political concepts are often applied to
understanding and developing policy recommendations
for economic systems, and economic concepts are often
applied to understanding and developing policy recom-
mendations for political systems, because the two sys-
tems share some significant similarities, as discussed
subsequently.
In his classic article, March (1962, p. 663) main-
tained that "the organization is properly viewed as a
political system and that viewing the firm as such a
system both clarifies conventional economic theory of
the firm and (in conjunction with recent developments
in theoretical languages) suggests some ways of dealing
with classical problems in the theory of political sys-
tems generally." He highlighted three main organiza-
tional concerns that are central to political theory: (1)
conflict resolution, (2) preference ordering, and (3)
allocation of scarce resources. These three concepts
are interrelated, as many conflicts are about prefer-
ence ordering and resource allocations. Such conflicts
occur with both internal (employees) and external
(community leaders, public interest groups) stakehold-
ers. March's article is primarily concerned with the
former. According to March, it is wrong to assume that
"conflict is resolved by the employment contract,
or—more generally—by the factor prices and that the
result is a joint preference ordering of some sort or
other" (p. 669).

Political concepts have entered the organization the-
ory literature in the areas of political coalitions at work
(Astley and Zajac 1991), power (Pfeffer 1992),
Machiavellianism (Buskirk 1974, Collins 1992, Jay
1967), and workplace justice (Sheppard et al. 1992).
Zahra (1985) reports that 82% of managers surveyed
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "effective
executives must be successful company politicians."
Political behaviors can be very dysfunctional (Ashforth
and Lee 1990). The business sections of book stores
are filled with intriguing stories of political problems
that have led to the downfall of business leaders,
managers, and organizations.
A key similarity among political, economic, and orga-
nizational systems is the way in which control is exer-
cised. As shown in Table 1, this is the sovereign/sub-
ject relationship. How should people be governed and
conflicts resolved? People can either be trusted and
extended significant liberties, or not be trusted and
made subject to extensive power of a sovereign. If
people can be trusted to behave appropriately when
granted political and economic liberty, why should they
not be trusted to behave appropriately when granted
liberty within organizations? Why should organizations
be exempt from the normal rules of morality?
Importantly, each of the social philosophical as-
sumptions, when applied to different systems, results in
different techniques. For instance. Table 1 does not
imply that because political authoritarians may im-
prison dissidents organizational authoritarians also im-
prison dissidents. Instead, both political and organiza-
tional authoritarians command in all matters, though

the techniques for carrying out their commands differ
with the contextual features of their unique operating
systems. All too often, managers, organization theo-
rists, and other business scholars readily dismiss orga-
nizational communitarianism on the grounds that rep-
resentative democracy is very messy (Jensen 1993).
However, Table 1 does not suggest that the specific
technique of representative democracy be imposed on
organizations. Instead, it suggests that participatory
management and representative democracy share many
social philosophical assumptions.
Desirability of Congruence among Political, Economic,
and Organizational Assumptions
The second key assumption is that the social philo-
sophical assumptions of political systems, economic
systems, and organizational systems should be similar.
The desire for value congruence and the creation of a
"well-ordered society" is the foundation of moral
philosophy. The justifications for value congruences,
on both the individual and societal levels of analysis,
include the unity of self, the essentiality to coopera-
tion, and the creation of stability. John Rawls is just
one of a great number of philosophers who have ar-
gued this point. In his modern classic A Theory of
Justice, Rawls—following in the philosophical tradition
of Aristotle, Kant, and Mill—argues that the individual
goal is "the unity of the self," whereby people free of
contradictions and hypocrisis pursue a rational plan
that fits within a personal and societal definition of
"the good" (1971, p. 561). Value consistency among
social systems is the trademark of a well-ordered soci-
ety, and value contradictions are the seeds of individ-
ual and social unrest. Value congruence is often essen-
tial for cooperation as there must be some agreement
on basic rules and shared values for cooperation to

occur. It thus leads to more stable relationships and a
more stable society.
Importantly, not all value congruence is acceptable.
Philosophers assume there is a set of values, or a range
of acceptable values, that is indeed better than other
492 ORGANIZATION SCIENCE/VOI. 8, No. 5, September-
October 1997
DENIS COLLINS The Ethical Superiority and Ineuitabitity of
values. More than 2,000 years ago Aristotle argued that
life has an ultimate purpose—happiness—which is
achieved through a combination of intellectual virtue,
moral virtue, health, and wealth. Specifically what
should be included in moral virtue has been a subject
of significant philosophical debate. Aristotle's list of
virtues has been criticized, defended, and amended.
For example, business ethicist Robert Solomon
(1993) maintains that the basic virtues of business
include justice, honesty, fairness, trust, toughness,
friendliness, honor, loyalty, shame, competition, caring,
and compassion. Freeman and Gilbert (1988) provide a
slightly different list of socially acceptable values under
the heading of "common morality," which include
promise keeping, nonmalevolence, mutual aid, respect
for persons, and respect for property. The values of
freedom, fairness, and security are at the heart of
Donaldson's (1989, p. 81) list of fundamental interna-
tional rights that multinationals must respect.

Just as important, not all values in these value sets
are equal. Solomon (1993), following in the steps of
Aristotle, is in very crowded company when claiming
that justice is the ultimate virtue, both in corporate life
and life in general. Hence both competition and com-
passion are to be obtained in reference to justice. As
Rawls (1971, p. 4-5) argues, "a society is well-ordered
when it is not only designed to advance the good of its
members but when it is also effectively regulated by a
public conception of justice." Justice is not simply an
attribute of government; it is central to the operation
of all systems of organization. Within both for-profit
and nonprofit organizations, justice considerations
weigh heavily in making, applying, and interpreting
policies and rules (Sheppard et al. 1992). As business
ethicists have long argued, business activities should be
evaluated according to these widely held values, which
leads into the third assumption of this article.
The Superiority of Ethical Arguments over Economic
Arguments
The third key assumption is that ethical arguments are
superior to economic ones. This is such a well-accepted
assumption in philosophy that one is hard pressed to
find an article in the past 15 years of Joumal of
Business Ethics or the past 5 years of Business Ethics
Quarterly that comes close to arguing the reverse, that
economic arguments are superior to ethical ones. How-
ever, one is hard pressed to find scholarly articles in
economics and business journals in which economic
evidence is discounted on moral grounds. Business
ethicists have attributed the latter phenomenon to a
phase in the evolution of ideas that is probably ending.
According to Shepard et al. (1995, p. 577), pre-
industrial society operated under a moral unity

paradigm where "business activity was linked to soci-
ety's values of morality." With the rise of industrialism,
business activity was "freed from moral constraints by
the alleged 'invisible hand' of efficient markets (the
amoral theory of business)," but "[now] some variant
of the moral unity paradigm may be recurring in post-
industrial society." The moral unity paradigm has been
the dominant one for most of the history of civilization,
is central to the field of business ethics and, as argued
with the preceding assumptions, is making some head-
way in the field of organization theory.
Economic techniques and data are ultimately justi-
fied according to some moral assessment and princi-
ples (Hausman and McPherson 1993). In addition, just
as not all value sets are equal, not all arguments based
on ethics are equal. It has been long established that
deontological and utilitarian ethical theories take
precedence over egoism, social group relativisim, and
cultural relativism (Brady and Dunn 1995). Lower level
ethical theories are often justified according to higher
level ethical theories. This ranking of ethical theories is
made explicit in Kohlberg's (1981) stages of moral
development. One need only go back to the original
writings of Adam Smith, the Father of Capitalism, to
understand the appropriate relationship between eco-
nomic and ethical arguments. The economic arguments
in The Wealth of Nations are justified by the ethical
arguments found in both The Wealth of Nations and
The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Collins 1988, Werhane
1991). Smith justifies the individual pursuit of eco-
nomic self-interests on the grounds that it will increase
a nation's standard of living, and thus afford the great-
est good for the greatest number of people (utilitarian
reasoning). In addition. Smith explicitly assumes that
individuals restrain their self-interested tendencies be-

cause of sympathy, respect for others, and avoidance of
harm (deontological reasons). Thus, economics is an
essential source of information used in making deci-
sions, but economic decisions are evaluated according
to deontological and utilitarian moral principles.
From a historical perspective, the social philosophi-
cal assumptions of much of organization theory and
practice remain 200 to 300 years behind the social
philosophical assumptions that generated the new gov-
ernance process implemented as the United States.
Organization theory has much to gain from historical
analysis (Kieser 1994). The following two sections pro-
vide a brief summary of historical developments in
political and economic theory that can be compared
with the current status of organization theory.
1997 493
DENtS COLLINS The Ethicat Superiority and Inevitability of
Political Debates in the United States
The Dismissal of Authoritarianism
Opposition to authoritarian political philosophy has a
long history in the United States. Many of the initial
waves of European immigrants who traveled across the
Atlantic Ocean to settle in the New World were fleeing
from political and religious oppression. During the late
sixteenth century, Oueen Elizabeth sought to unify the
subjects of England under the Anglican Church. By act
of Parliament, all clergy of England were made to
accept particular religious creeds, such as the Book of

Common Prayer, Thirty-Nine Articles, and the Oueen's
religious sovereignty. Those who did not accept these
creeds were persecuted; publications were censored,
assemblies disbanded, congregations fined, preachers
imprisoned, and property confiscated (Braehlow 1988,
Cragg 1957, Durant and Durant 1961). Failure to ad-
here to a particular religious doctrine—whether Angli-
canism in England, Catholicism in France, or
Lutheranism in Germany, Denmark, and Sweden—
could result in torture and exile. Religious dissenters
could not hold political or military office, or enter most
universities.
In addition to those seeking political and religious
freedom, immigrants to the New World included peas-
ants, fortune hunters, and criminals. Many of the early
political debates within and between groups of settlers
concerned the degree of allegiance the group should
maintain to its European sovereign. Who ought to
govern life in the colonies: Spain, the Netherlands,
France, England, or the colonists themselves? For bet-
ter or worse, military victories by the British against
their European rivals centralized British sovereignship
until the Revolutionary War.
Many, but not all, colonists preferred self-rule. In
the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson
referred to King George of England as a despot and
fyrant who refused to allow the colonists to establish
their own legislative and judicial bodies. Without the
consent of colonial leaders, the king imposed an army
and police force, collected taxes, determined trade
policies, and, according to the Declaration, "plundered
our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and
destroyed the lives of our people." In declaring their
freedom from generations of rule by monarchs and

nobles, the colonial political leaders were faced with
with the same problem from which many of them or
their ancestors had fled: how to maintain peace among
a population of 2,500,000 whose members were of a
variefy of religions intolerant of other religions, most
notably Anglicanism, Puritanism, and Presbyterianism
(Perry 1944).
Both libertarians and communitarians credit John
Locke's (1960) Two Treatises of Government for estab-
lishing the legitimacy of government based on the
consent of the governed and providing the ethical basis
for defending the structures, processes, and policies of
democratic governments (Lodge 1976, Rothbard 1978).
Locke argued that desirable ends can be achieved, and
undesirable ends avoided, when there is only one
sovereign group and that sovereign's law-making ability
is based on the consent of the governed. According to
Locke, God created a humanify that is free and ratio-
nal. If no system of central control existed, people
(other than a few degenerates) would restrain their
behavior according to their reason, which dictates that
they should not harm others. Therefore, peace could
be maintained in civil sociefy if the sovereign allowed
its subjects extensive liberties. Subjects could be trusted
to pursue their own self-interests in a manner that
would improve the general welfare. The sovereign, who
should be accountable to the law, could continue to
make and maintain laws on the condition that those
laws be in the public interest and have the consent of
the subjects. A lack of consent by subjects would un-
dermine the legitimacy of the sovereign to govern. The
overriding principle of government should be the pro-
tection of individual liberfy.
Thus, the U.S. Constitution established minimal gov-

ernment. Persons fulfilling the role of sovereign were
accountable to the consent of the governed and
tremendous restrictions were placed on government's
use of power over individuals. The Bill of Rights was
amended to the Constitution to further limit govern-
mental powers. Individuals …
European Management Journal (2010) 28, 269– 277
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c
a t e / e m j
Leadership: The ghost at the trillion dollar crash?
Douglas Board *
University of Hertfordshire, Complexity and Management
Centre, Hatfield AL10 9AB, UK
02
do
*
1
2
KEYWORDS
Leadership;
Governance;
Financial crisis;
Systems thinking;
Management as science
63-2373/$ - see front matte
i:10.1016/j.emj.2010.04.00
Tel.: +44 (0)7957 140 776;
E-mail address: [email protected]
Financial Times, London, 6

Financial Times, London, 2
r ª 201
2
fax: +44
aslowsa
July 20
0 March
Summary Leadership has been largely overlooked by bankers,
regulators, policy-makers
and scholars trying to discern the cause of the global financial
crisis. The paper suggests
that this is odd, given the attention (both theoretical and
practical) commanded by the
subject over the past 30 years. Drawing on the author�s
experience in executive search
and analysing critically the lessons proposed by the UK�s
inquiry into bank governance, this
paper argues that common ways of leading and of thinking
about leadership, in conjunc-
tion with systems thinking, helped cause this crisis and are
already contributing to the
next. While some scholars have offered important and relevant
critiques, the dominant
discourse on leadership remains dangerously unperturbed.
ª 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
What lessons are we learning from the global financial crisis?
James Dean, Dean of Kenan-Flagler business school, is in no
doubt: �If the financial crisis has taught us nothing else, it is
that people in the financial industry need leadership.�1
Jessica Einhorn, Dean of the School for Advanced Inter-
national Studies at Johns Hopkins, proposes a parallel prior-
ity: �If there is one thing we should have learnt in the past

year, it is that we need to hold our public officials account-
able for thinking through systemic issues.�2
This paper questions the present day combination of
leadership with systems thinking. After noting the scale of
the present crash, the dramatic growth in attention given
by managers and scholars alike to leadership during the past
30 years is recalled. If there has been a leadership boom
0 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
(0)20 7252 2915.
ttic.com
09.
2009.
3 Such as those by Gieve, Greenspan, Turner and Wolf cited
below.
why is that boom so little discussed in post-mortems of the
financial bust by bankers, regulators, policy-makers and
scholars?3 This paper argues that despite the shift towards
more complex, less mechanistic thinking in economics,
the dominant lesson-learning from this global trauma re-
mains inadequate.
As a leading financial centre the UK was particularly in-
volved in the global crisis. This paper will look at the work
commissioned by the UK Prime Minister from Sir David
Walker to identify lessons for the boardrooms of banks
themselves (Walker, 2009a,b). Walker was appointed in
February 2009 to examine corporate governance in the UK
banking industry in the light of the financial crisis. A former
deputy chairman of Lloyds Bank and chairman of Morgan
Stanley International, Walker had also worked at the Bank
of England and chaired the UK�s securities regulator.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2010.04.002

Sources and Tips for Assignment 1 (History 105; Prof. Stansbury)—.docx

Sources and Tips for Assignment 1 (History 105; Prof. Stansbury)—.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Sources and Tips for Assignment 1 (History 105; Prof. Stansbury)—.docx

Similar to Sources and Tips for Assignment 1 (History 105; Prof. Stansbury)—.docx (20)

More from williame8

More from williame8 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Sources and Tips for Assignment 1 (History 105; Prof. Stansbury)—.docx