Skip to main content
Log in

Participation in the Workplace: Are Employees Special?

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I consider two influential arguments for employee participation in firm decision making: what I call the “interest protection argument” and the “autonomy argument.” I argue that the case for granting participation rights to some other stakeholders, such as suppliers and community members, is at least as strong, according to the reasons given in these arguments, as the case for granting them to certain employees. I then consider how proponents of these arguments might modify their arguments, or views, in response to this conclusion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Archer, R.: 1996, ‹The Philosophical Case for Economic Democracy’, in U. Pagano and R. Rowthorn (eds.), Democracy and Efficiency in the Economic Enterprise (New York: Routledge), pp. 13–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenkert, G. G.: 1992, ‹Freedom, Participation and Corporations: The Issue of Corporate (Economic) Democracy’, Business Ethics Quarterly 2, 251–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christiano, T.: 2008, ‹Authority’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/authority/.

  • Cohen, J.: 1989, ‹The Economic Basis of Deliberative Democracy’, Social Philosophy and Policy 6(2), 25–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, G.A.: 1995, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R.A.: 1985, A Preface to Economic Democracy (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, R. S.: 2007, ‹Respect’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring Edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/respect/.

  • Dow, G.K.: 2003, Governing the Firm: Workers’ Control in Theory and Practice (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, G.: 1988, The Theory and Practice of Autonomy (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman, D.P.: 1992, Property and Contract in Economics: The Case for Economic Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt, H.: 1971, ‹Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person’, Journal of Philosophy 68, 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, A.H. and J.R. Veum: 1997, ‹Unemployment, Joblessness, Psychological Well-Being and Self-Esteem: Theory and Evidence’, Journal of Socio-Economics 26, 133–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, C.C.: 1988, Rethinking Democracy: Freedom and Social Cooperation in Politics, Economy, and Society (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasnas, J.: 1998, ‹The Normative Theories of Business Ethics: A Guide for the Perplexed’, Business Ethics Quarterly 8, 19–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, N.H.: 2005, ‹Rawlsian Justice and Workplace Republicanism’, Social Theory and Practice 31, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, N.H.: 2008, ‹Survey Article: Justice in Production’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 16, 72–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahoda, M.: 1982. Employment and Unemployment: A Social-Psychological Analysis (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.: 2002, ‹Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function’, Business Ethics Quarterly 12, 235–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., K. McClear and D. Knight: 1996, ‹Self Esteem and Work’, in C. Cooper and I. Robertson (eds.), International Review of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11 (John Wiley & Sons, New York), pp. 1–32.

  • McCall, J.J.: 2001, ‹Employee Voice in Corporate Governance: A Defense of Strong Participation Rights’, Business Ethics Quarterly 11, 195–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D.: 1989, ‹Why Markets?’, in J. Le Grand and S. Estrin (eds.), Market Socialism (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 25–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R.: 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, C.: 1970, Participation and Democratic Theory (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J.L. and D.G. Gardner: 2004, ‹Self-Esteem Within the Work and Organizational Context: A Review of the Organization-Based Self-Esteem Literature’, Journal of Management 30, 591–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plant, R. 1989, ‹Socialism, Markets, and End States’, in J. Le Grand and S. Estrin (eds.), Market Socialism (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 50–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J.: 1971, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schieman, S.: 2002, ‹Socioeconomic Status, Job Conditions, and Well-Being: Self- Concept Explanations for Gender-Contingent Effects’, The Sociological Quarterly 43, 627–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M.: 1983, Spheres of Justice (New York: Basic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, R.: 1986, Personal Autonomy: Beyond Negative and Positive Liberty (New York: St. Martin’s Press).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey Moriarty.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moriarty, J. Participation in the Workplace: Are Employees Special?. J Bus Ethics 92, 373–384 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0160-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0160-7

Keywords

Navigation