>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:51:51 -0500 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Tim Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Historical Context of the Work Ethic C >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk > > > >The Work Ethic in America > >Although the Protestant ethic became a significant factor in shaping the >culture and society of Europe after the sixteenth century, its impact >did not eliminate the social hierarchy which gave status to those whose >wealth allowed exemption from toil and made gentility synonymous with >leisure (Rodgers, 1978). The early adventurers who first found America >were searching, not for a place to work and build a new land, but for a >new Eden where abundance and riches would allow them to follow >Aristotle's instruction that leisure was the only life fitting for a >free man. The New England Puritans, the Pennsylvania Quakers, and others >of the Protestant sects, who eventually settled in America, however, >came with no hopes or illusions of a life of ease. > >The early settlers referred to America as a wilderness, in part because >they sought the spiritual growth associated with coming through the >wilderness in the Bible (Rodgers, 1978). From their viewpoint, the moral >life was one of hard work and determination, and they approached the >task of building a new world in the wilderness as an opportunity to >prove their own moral worth. What resulted was a land preoccupied with >toil. > >When significant numbers of Europeans began to visit the new world in >the early 1800's, they were amazed with the extent of the transformation >(Rodgers, 1978). Visitors to the northern states were particularly >impressed by the industrious pace. They often complained about the lack >of opportunities for amusement, and they were perplexed by the lack of a >social strata dedicated to a life of leisure. > >Work in preindustrial America was not incessant, however. The work of >agriculture was seasonal, hectic during planting and harvesting but more >relaxed during the winter months. Even in workshops and stores, the pace >was not constant. Changing demands due to the seasons, varied >availability of materials, and poor transportation and communication >contributed to interruptions in the steadiness of work. The work ethic >of this era did not demand the ceaseless regularity which came with the >age of machines, but supported sincere dedication to accomplish those >tasks a person might have before them. The work ethic "was not a certain >rate of business but a way of thinking" (Rodgers, 1978, p. 19). > > > >The Work Ethic and the Industrial Revolution > >As work in America was being dramatically affected by the industrial >revolution in the mid-nineteenth century, the work ethic had become >secularized in a number of ways. The idea of work as a calling had been >replaced by the concept of public usefulness. Economists warned of the >poverty and decay that would befall the country if people failed to work >hard, and moralists stressed the social duty of each person to be >productive (Rodgers, 1978). Schools taught, along with the alphabet and >the spelling book, that idleness was a disgrace. The work ethic also >provided a sociological as well as an ideological explanation for the >origins of social hierarchy through the corollary that effort expended >in work would be rewarded (Gilbert, 1977). > >Some elements of the work ethic, however, did not bode well with the >industrial age. One of the central themes of the work ethic was that an >individual could be the master of his own fate through hard work. Within >the context of the craft and agricultural society this was true. A >person could advance his position in life through manual labor and the >economic benefits it would produce. Manual labor, however, began to be >replaced by machine manufacture and intensive division of labor came >with the industrial age. As a result, individual control over the >quantity and methods of personal production began to be removed >(Gilbert, 1977). > >The impact of industrialization and the speed with which it spread >during the second half of the nineteenth century was notable. Rodgers >(1978) reported that as late as 1850 most American manufacturing was >still being done in homes and workshops. This pattern was not confined >to rural areas, but was found in cities also where all varieties of >craftsmen plied their trades. Some division of labor was utilized, but >most work was performed using time-honored hand methods. A certain >measure of independence and creativity could be taken for granted in the >workplace. No one directly supervised home workers or farmers, and in >the small shops and mills, supervision was mostly unstructured. The >cotton textile industry of New England was the major exception. > >Rodgers (1978) described the founding, in the early 1820's, of Lowell, >Massachusetts as the real beginning of the industrial age in America. By >the end of the decade, nineteen textile mills were in operation in the >city, and 5,000 workers were employed in the mills. During the years >that followed, factories were built in other towns as competition in the >industry grew. These cotton mills were distinguished from other >factories of the day by their size, the discipline demanded of their >workers, and the paternalistic regulations imposed on employees >(Rodgers, 1978). Gradually the patterns of employment and management >initiated in the cotton mills spread to other industries, and during the >later half of the nineteenth century, the home and workshop trades were >essentially replaced by the mass production of factories. > >In the factories, skill and craftsmanship were replaced by discipline >and anonymity. A host of carefully preserved hand trades--tailoring, >barrel making, glass blowing, felt-hat making, pottery making, and shoe >making--disappeared as they were replaced by new inventions and >specialization of labor (Rodgers, 1978). Although new skills were needed >in some factories, the trend was toward a semiskilled labor force, >typically operating one machine to perform one small piece of a >manufacturing process. The sense of control over one's destiny was >missing in the new workplace, and the emptiness and lack of intellectual >stimulation in work threatened the work ethic (Gilbert, 1977). In the >secularized attitudes which comprised the work ethic up until that time, >a central component was the promise of psychological reward for efforts >in one's work, but the factory system did little to support a sense of >purpose or self-fulfillment for those who were on the assembly lines. > >The factory system also threatened the promise of economic >reward--another key premise of the work ethic. The output of products >manufactured by factories was so great that by the 1880's industrial >capacity exceeded that which the economy could absorb (Rodgers, 1978). >Under the system of home and workshop industries, production had been a >virtue, and excess goods were not a problem. Now that factories could >produce more than the nation could use, hard work and production no >longer always provided assurance of prosperity. > >In the first half of the twentieth century, the industrial system >continued to dominate work in America and much of the rest of the world. >Technology continued to advance, but innovation tended to be focused on >those areas of manufacture which had not yet been mastered by machines. >Little was done to change the routine tasks of feeding materials into >automated equipment or other forms of semiskilled labor which were more >economically done by low wage workers (Rodgers, 1978). > > > >The Work Ethic and Industrial Management > >Management of industries became more systematic and structured as >increased competition forced factory owners to hold costs down. The >model of management which developed, the traditional model, was >characterized by a very authoritarian style which did not acknowledge >the work ethic. To the contrary, Daft and Steers (1986) described this >model as holding "that the average worker was basically lazy and was >motivated almost entirely by money (p. 93)." Workers were assumed to >neither desire nor be capable of autonomous or self-directed work. As a >result, the scientific management concept was developed, predicated on >specialization and division of jobs into simple tasks. Scientific >management was claimed to increase worker production and result in >increased pay. It was therefore seen as beneficial to workers, as well >as to the company, since monetary gain was viewed as the primary >motivating factor for both. > >As use of scientific management became more widespread in the early >1900's, it became apparent that factors other than pay were significant >to worker motivation. Some workers were self-starters and didn't respond >well to close supervision and others became distrustful of management >when pay increases failed to keep pace with improved productivity (Daft >and Steers, 1986). Although unacknowledged in management practice, these >were indicators of continued viability of the work ethic in employees. > >By the end of World War II scientific management was considered >inadequate and outdated to deal with the needs of industry (Jaggi, >1988). At this point the behaviorist school of thought emerged to >provide alternative theories for guiding the management of workers. >Contrary to the principles of scientific management, the behaviorists >argued that workers were not intrinsically lazy. They were adaptive. If >the environment failed to provide a challenge, workers became lazy, but >if appropriate opportunities were provided, workers would become >creative and motivated. > >In response to the new theories, managers turned their attention to >finding various ways to make jobs more fulfilling for workers. Human >relations became an important issue and efforts were made to make people >feel useful and important at work. Company newspapers, employee awards, >and company social events were among the tools used by management to >enhance the job environment (Daft and Steers, 1986), but the basic >nature of the workplace remained unchanged. The adversarial relationship >between employee and employer persisted. > >In the late 1950's job enrichment theories began to provide the basis >for fundamental changes in employer-employee relationships. Herzberg, >Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) identified factors such as achievement, >recognition, responsibility, advancement, and personal growth which, >when provided as an intrinsic component of a job, tended to motivate >workers to perform better. Factors such as salary, company policies, >supervisory style, working conditions, and relations with fellow workers >tended to impair worker performance if inadequately provided for, but >did not particularly improve worker motivation when present. > >In 1960, when the concepts of theory "X" and theory "Y" were introduced >by McGregor, the basis for a management style conducive to achieving job >enrichment for workers was provided (Jaggi, 1988). Theory "X" referred >to the authoritarian management style characteristic of scientific >management but theory "Y" supported a participatory style of management. > > >Jaggi (1988) defined participatory management as "a cooperative process >in which management and workers work together to accomplish a common >goal (p. 446)." Unlike authoritarian styles of management, which >provided top-down, directive control over workers assumed to be >unmotivated and in need of guidance, participatory management asserted >that worker involvement in decisionmaking provided valuable input and >enhanced employee satisfaction and morale. Yankelovich and Immerwahr >(1984) described participatory management as a system which would open >the way for the work ethic to be a powerful resource in the workplace. >They stated, however, that the persistence of the traditional model in >American management discouraged workers, even though many wanted to work >hard and do good work for its own sake. >
