McGuireJoseph, “The New Egalitarianism and Managerial Practice,”California Management Review (Spring 1977), p. 21.
2.
Ibid., p. 22.
3.
Ibid., p. 28.
4.
Ibid., p. 21.
5.
Ibid., p. 29.
6.
RawlsJohn, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971).
7.
McGuire, op. cit., pp. 22–23.
8.
Ibid.
9.
Rawls, op. cit., p. 4.
10.
Pareto optimality means that, at minimum, no one will be worse off and at least one will be better off. See Rawls, op. cit., p. 8.
11.
He admits that initiators or advocates of these egalitarian programs and policies probably had not heard of Rawls.
12.
McGuire, op. cit., p. 24.
13.
Ibid., pp. 25–26.
14.
Some of the confusion may result from the fact that advocates of equality of results generally (or in specific programs) defend their position with reasons similar to Rawls: Existing inequalities are not justifiable in terms of personal merit; the value of “natural” advantages depends on the existence of society, so society is justified in redistributing the benefits more equitably; human dignity requires greater equality.
15.
We have in mind surveys which show college students ranking job challenge and ability as meaningful above financial factors in career choice, which show white-collar workers rating interesting work and opportunity to develop abilities above economic factors in what they seek in jobs and careers. With a larger percentage of college students saying they are interested in business and professional careers and with an increased percentage of women and minorities competing for such positions, it would appear that economic and status differentials will not have to be as large to attract competent position holders. See essays by YankelovichDanielKatzellRaymond, in KerrClarkRosowJerome M. (eds.), Work in America: The Decade Ahead (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1979).
16.
Japanese management style is known for its inclusion of workers in the corporate decision-making scheme of things (somewhat like decision through consensus). See especially OuchiWilliam, Theory Z: How Amerıcan Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1981).
17.
ThompsonJames, Organization in Actıon (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
18.
RossIrwin, “How Lawless Are Big Companies?”Fortune (1 December 1980), pp. 57–64. Also, see a rebuttal by LurieWilliam L., “How Justice Loads the Scales Against Big Corporations,”Fortune (19 December 1980).
19.
BaumhartRaymond, Ethics in Business (New York: Rinehart and Winston, 1968).
20.
SimonH. A., Administrative Behavior, 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1957); MarchJ. G.SimonHerbert A., Organizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958).
21.
Rawls, op. cit., pp. 209, 248ff.
22.
Ibid., pp. 248–249.
23.
Ibid., p. 250.
24.
One of the authors reviewed the past ten years of journals, including Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, California Management Review, and Harvard Business Review, for articles on social responsibility. These journals are among the most reputable and do not appear to have an editorial bias either for or against the notion of social responsibility.
