Historical Context of the
Work Ethic
Roger B. Hill, Ph.D. (Fonte
)
From a
historical perspective, the cultural norm placing a positive
moral value on doing a good job because work has intrinsic
value for its own sake was a relatively recent development
(Lipset, 1990). Work, for much of the ancient history of the
human race, has been hard and degrading. Working hard--in
the absence of compulsion--was not the norm for Hebrew, classical,
or medieval cultures (Rose, 1985). It was not until the Protestant
Reformation that physical labor became culturally acceptable
for all persons, even the wealthy.
Attitudes
Toward Work During the Classical Period
One of
the significant influences on the culture of the western world
has been the Judeo-Christian belief system. Growing awareness
of the multicultural dimensions of contemporary society has
moved educators to consider alternative viewpoints and perspectives,
but an understanding of western thought is an important element
in the understanding of the history of the United States.
Traditional
Judeo-Christian beliefs state that sometime after the dawn
of creation, man was placed in the Garden of Eden "to work
it and take care of it" (NIV, 1973, Genesis 2:15). What was
likely an ideal work situation was disrupted when sin entered
the world and humans were ejected from the Garden. Genesis
3:19 described the human plight from that time on. "By the
sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return
to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you
are and to dust you will return" (NIV, 1973). Rose stated
that the Hebrew belief system viewed work as a "curse devised
by God explicitly to punish the disobedience and ingratitude
of Adam and Eve" (1985, p. 28). Numerous scriptures from the
Old Testament in fact supported work, not from the stance
that there was any joy in it, but from the premise that it
was necessary to prevent poverty and destitution (NIV; 1973;
Proverbs 10:14, Proverbs 13:4, Proverbs 14:23, Proverbs 20:13,
Ecclesiastes 9:10).
The Greeks,
like the Hebrews, also regarded work as a curse (Maywood,
1982). According to Tilgher (1930), the Greek word for work
was ponos, taken from the Latin poena, which
meant sorrow. Manual labor was for slaves. The cultural norms
allowed free men to pursue warfare, large-scale commerce,
and the arts, especially architecture or sculpture (Rose,
1985).
Mental
labor was also considered to be work and was denounced by
the Greeks. The mechanical arts were deplored because they
required a person to use practical thinking, "brutalizing
the mind till it was unfit for thinking of truth" (Tilgher,
1930, p. 4). Skilled crafts were accepted and recognized as
having some social value, but were not regarded as much better
than work appropriate for slaves. Hard work, whether due to
economic need or under the orders of a master, was disdained.
It was
recognized that work was necessary for the satisfaction of
material needs, but philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle
made it clear that the purpose for which the majority of men
labored was "in order that the minority, the Ă©lite, might
engage in pure exercises of the mind--art, philosophy, and
politics" (Tilgher, 1930, p. 5). Plato recognized the notion
of a division of labor, separating them first into categories
of rich and poor, and then into categories by different kinds
of work, and he argued that such an arrangement could only
be avoided by abolition of private property (Anthony, 1977).
Aristotle supported the ownership of private property and
wealth. He viewed work as a corrupt waste of time that would
make a citizen's pursuit of virtue more difficult (Anthony,
1977).
Braude
(1975) described the Greek belief that a person's prudence,
morality, and wisdom was directly proportional to the amount
of leisure time that person had. A person who worked, when
there was no need to do so, would run the risk of obliterating
the distinction between slave and master. Leadership, in the
Greek state and culture, was based on the work a person didn't
have to do, and any person who broke this cultural norm was
acting to subvert the state itself.
The Romans
adopted much of their belief system from the culture of the
Greeks and they also held manual labor in low regard (Lipset,
1990). The Romans were industrious, however, and demonstrated
competence in organization, administration, building, and
warfare. Through the empire that they established, the Roman
culture was spread through much of the civilized world during
the period from c500 BC until c117 AD (Webster Encyclopedia,
1985). The Roman empire spanned most of Europe, the Middle
East, Egypt, and North Africa and greatly influenced the Western
culture in which the theoretical constructs underlying this
study were developed.
Slavery
had been an integral part of the ancient world prior to the
Roman empire, but the employment of slaves was much more widely
utilized by the Romans than by the Greeks before them (Anthony,
1977). Early on in the Roman system, moderate numbers of slaves
were held and they were treated relatively well. As the size
of landholdings grew, however, thousands of slaves were required
for large-scale grain production on some estates, and their
treatment grew worse. Slaves came to be viewed as cattle,
with no rights as human beings and with little hope of ever
being freed. In fact, in some instances cattle received greater
care than slaves, since cattle were not as capable of caring
for themselves as were slaves (Anthony, 1977).
For the
Romans, work was to be done by slaves, and only two occupations
were suitable for a free man--agriculture and big business
(Maywood, 1982). A goal of these endeavors, as defined by
the Roman culture, was to achieve an "honorable retirement
into rural peace as a country gentleman" (Tilgher, 1930, p.
8). Any pursuit of handicrafts or the hiring out of a person's
arms was considered to be vulgar, dishonoring, and beneath
the dignity of a Roman citizen.
Philosophically,
both the Greeks and the Romans viewed the work that slaves
performed and the wealth that free men possessed as a means
to achieve the supreme ideal of life--man's independence of
external things, self-sufficiency, and satisfaction with one's
self (Tilgher, 1930). Although work was something that would
degrade virtue, wealth was not directly related to virtue
except in the matter of how it was used. The view of Antisthenes
that wealth and virtue were incompatible and the view of the
Stoics that wealth should be pursued for the purpose of generosity
and social good represented extremes of philosophical thought.
The most accepted view was that pursuit of gain to meet normal
needs was appropriate.
From the
perspective of a contemporary culture, respect for workers
upon whom the economic structure of a nation and a society
rested would have been logical for the Greeks and the Romans,
but no such respect was evident. Even free men, who were not
privileged to be wealthy and were obliged to work along side
slaves, were not treated with any sense of gratitude, but
were held in contempt. The cultural norms of the classical
era regarding work were in stark contrast to the work ethic
of the latter day.
Attitudes
Toward Work During the Medieval Period
The fall
of the Roman empire marked the beginning of a period generally
known as the Middle Ages. During this time, from c400 AD until
c1400 AD, Christian thought dominated the culture of Europe
(Braude, 1975). Woven into the Christian conceptions about
work, however, were Hebrew, Greek, and Roman themes. Work
was still perceived as punishment by God for man's original
sin, but to this purely negative view was added the positive
aspect of earnings which prevented one from being reliant
on the charity of others for the physical needs of life (Tilgher,
1930). Wealth was recognized as an opportunity to share with
those who might be less fortunate and work which produced
wealth therefore became acceptable.
Early
Christian thought placed an emphasis on the shortness of time
until the second coming of Christ and the end of the world.
Any attachment to physical things of the world or striving
to accumulate excessive wealth was frowned upon. As time passed
and the world did not end, the Christian church began to turn
its attention to social structure and the organization of
the believers on earth. Monasteries were formed where monks
performed the religious and intellectual work of the church
(reading, copying manuscripts, etc.), but lay people tended
to the manual labor needed to supply the needs of the community.
People who were wealthy were expected to meet their own needs,
but to give the excess of their riches to charity. Handicraft,
farming, and small scale commerce were acceptable for people
of moderate means, but receiving interest for money loaned,
charging more than a "just" price, and big business were not
acceptable (Tilgher, 1930).
As was
the case for the Greeks and the Romans, social status within
the medieval culture was related to the work a person did.
Aristotelianism was also evident in the system of divine law
taught by the Catholic church during this time (Anthony, 1977).
A hierarchy of professions and trades was developed by St.
Thomas Aquinas as part of his encyclopedic consideration of
all things human and divine (Tilgher, 1930). Agriculture was
ranked first, followed by the handicrafts and then commerce.
These were considered to be the work of the world, however,
and the work of the church was in a higher category (Rose,
1985). The ideal occupation was the monastic life of prayer
and contemplation of God (Braude, 1975; Tilgher, 1930). Whether
as a cleric or in some worldly occupation, each person embarked
on a particular work course as a result of the calling of
God, and it was the duty of a worker to remain in his class,
passing on his family work from father to son.
In the
culture of the medieval period, work still held no intrinsic
value. The function of work was to meet the physical needs
of one's family and community, and to avoid idleness which
would lead to sin (Tilgher, 1930). Work was a part of the
economic structure of human society which, like all other
things, was ordered by God.
Protestantism
and the Protestant Ethic
With the
Reformation, a period of religious and political upheaval
in western Europe during the sixteenth century, came a new
perspective on work. Two key religious leaders who influenced
the development of western culture during this period were
Martin Luther and John Calvin. Luther was an Augustinian friar
who became discontent with the Catholic church and was a leader
within the Protestant movement. He believed that people could
serve God through their work, that the professions were useful,
that work was the universal base of society and the cause
of differing social classes, and that a person should work
diligently in their own occupation and should not try to change
from the profession to which he was born. To do so would be
to go against God's laws since God assigned each person to
his own place in the social hierarchy (Lipset, 1990; Tilgher,
1930).
The major
point at which Luther differed from the medieval concept of
work was regarding the superiority of one form of work over
another. Luther regarded the monastic and contemplative life,
held up as the ideal during the middle ages, as an egotistic
and unaffectionate exercise on the part of the monks, and
he accused them of evading their duty to their neighbors (Tilgher,
1930). For Luther, a person's vocation was equated as his
calling, but all calling's were of equal spiritual dignity.
This tenant was significant because it affirmed manual labor.
Luther
still did not pave the way for a profit-oriented economic
system because he disapproved of commerce as an occupation
(Lipset, 1990; Tilgher, 1930). From his perspective, commerce
did not involve any real work. Luther also believed that each
person should earn an income which would meet his basic needs,
but to accumulate or horde wealth was sinful.
According
to Weber (1904, 1905), it was John Calvin who introduced the
theological doctrines which combined with those of Martin
Luther to form a significant new attitude toward work. Calvin
was a French theologian whose concept of predestination was
revolutionary. Central to Calvinist belief was the Elect,
those persons chosen by God to inherit eternal life. All other
people were damned and nothing could change that since God
was unchanging. While it was impossible to know for certain
whether a person was one of the Elect, one could have a sense
of it based on his own personal encounters with God. Outwardly
the only evidence was in the person's daily life and deeds,
and success in one's worldly endeavors was a sign of possible
inclusion as one of the Elect. A person who was indifferent
and displayed idleness was most certainly one of the damned,
but a person who was active, austere, and hard-working gave
evidence to himself and to others that he was one of God's
chosen ones (Tilgher, 1930).
Calvin
taught that all men must work, even the rich, because to work
was the will of God. It was the duty of men to serve as God's
instruments here on earth, to reshape the world in the fashion
of the Kingdom of God, and to become a part of the continuing
process of His creation (Braude, 1975). Men were not to lust
after wealth, possessions, or easy living, but were to reinvest
the profits of their labor into financing further ventures.
Earnings were thus to be reinvested over and over again, ad
infinitum, or to the end of time (Lipset, 1990). Using
profits to help others rise from a lessor level of subsistence
violated God's will since persons could only demonstrate that
they were among the Elect through their own labor (Lipset,
1990).
Selection
of an occupation and pursuing it to achieve the greatest profit
possible was considered by Calvinists to be a religious duty.
Not only condoning, but encouraging the pursuit of unlimited
profit was a radical departure from the Christian beliefs
of the middle ages. In addition, unlike Luther, Calvin considered
it appropriate to seek an occupation which would provide the
greatest earnings possible. If that meant abandoning the family
trade or profession, the change was not only allowed, but
it was considered to be one's religious duty (Tilgher, 1930).
The norms
regarding work which developed out of the Protestant Reformation,
based on the combined theological teachings of Luther and
Calvin, encouraged work in a chosen occupation with an attitude
of service to God, viewed work as a calling and avoided placing
greater spiritual dignity on one job than another, approved
of working diligently to achieve maximum profits, required
reinvestment of profits back into one's business, allowed
a person to change from the craft or profession of his father,
and associated success in one's work with the likelihood of
being one of God's Elect.
Two
Perspectives of the Protestant Ethic
The attitudes
toward work which became a part of the culture during the
sixteenth century, and the economic value system which they
nurtured, represented a significant change from medieval and
classical ways of thinking about work (Anthony, 1977). Max
Weber, the German economic sociologist, coined a term for
the new beliefs about work calling it the "Protestant ethic."
The key elements of the Protestant ethic were diligence, punctuality,
deferment of gratification, and primacy of the work domain
(Rose, 1985). Two distinct perspectives were evident in the
literature with regard to the development of the Protestant
ethic.
One perspective
was the materialist viewpoint which stated that the belief
system, called the Protestant ethic, grew out of changes in
the economic structure and the need for values to support
new ways of behavior. Anthony (1977) attributes this view
to Karl Marx. The other perspective, delineated by Max Weber
(1904, 1905), viewed changes in the economic structure as
an outgrowth of shifts in theological beliefs. Regardless
of the viewpoint, it is evident that a rapid expansion in
commerce and the rise of industrialism coincided with the
Protestant Reformation (Rose, 1985).
Bernstein
(1988), in an argument supporting the materialist viewpoint,
enumerated three sixteenth century trends which probably contributed
to the support by Luther and Calvin of diligence: (1) a rapid
population increase of Germany and Western Europe, (2) inflation,
and (3) a high unemployment rate. Probably the most serious
of these was the rapid expansion in population. Between 1500
and 1600, the population of Germany increased by 25% and the
British population increased by 40% (Bernstein, 1988). In
the cities, the increases were even greater as people from
rural areas were displaced by enclosure of large tracts of
land for sheep farming. In addition, the import of large quantities
of silver and gold from Mexico and Peru contributed to inflation
in general price levels of between 300% and 400%, and even
higher inflation in food prices (Bernstein, 1988). Along with
the growth in population and the inflation problems, unemployment
was estimated at 20% in some cities (Bernstein, 1988). People
without jobs became commonplace on the streets of cities,
begging and struggling to survive.
European
cities acted to alleviate the problems of unemployment and
begging on the streets by passing laws which prohibited begging.
The general perception of the time was that work was available
for those who wanted to work, and that beggars and vagrants
were just lazy. The reality was that the movement of people
into the cities far exceeded the capacity of the urban areas
to provide jobs. The theological premise that work was a necessary
penance for original sin caused increased prejudice toward
those without work. Bernstein (1988) suggested that a fundamental
misunderstanding of the economic realities facing the poor
contributed to the theological development of the Protestant
ethic.
From a
marxist view, what actually occurred was the development of
a religious base of support for a new industrial system which
required workers who would accept long hours and poor working
conditions (Anthony, 1977; Berenstein, 1988). Berenstein did
not accuse the theological leaders of the Protestant Reformation
of deliberately constructing a belief system which would support
the new economic order, but proposed that they did misconstrue
the realities of the poor and the unemployed of their day.
From the
perspective of Max Weber (1904, 1905), the theological beliefs
came first and change in the economic system resulted. Motivation
of persons to work hard and to reinvest profits in new business
ventures was perceived as an outcome primarily of Calvinism.
Weber further concluded that countries with belief systems
which were predominantly Protestant prospered more under capitalism
than did those which were predominantly Catholic (Rose, 1985).
The
Work Ethic and the Rise of Capitalism
During
the medieval period, the feudal system became the dominant
economic structure in Europe. This was a social, economic,
and political system under which landowners provided governance
and protection to those who lived and worked on their property.
Centralization of government, the growth of trade, and the
establishment of economically powerful towns, during the fifteenth
century, provided alternative choices for subsistence, and
the feudal system died out (Webster Encyclopedia, 1985).
One of the factors that made the feudal system work was the
predominant religious belief that it was sinful for people
to seek work other than within the God ordained occupations
fathers passed on to their sons. With the Protestant Reformation,
and the spread of a theology which ordained the divine dignity
of all occupations as well as the right of choosing
one's work, the underpinnings of an emerging capitalist economic
system were established.
Anthony
(1977) described the significance of an ideology advocating
regular systematic work as essential to the transformation
from the feudal system to the modern society. In the emerging
capitalist system, work was good. It satisfied the economic
interests of an increasing number of small businessmen and
it became a social duty--a norm. Hard work brought respect
and contributed to the social order and well being of the
community. The dignity with which society viewed work brought
dignity for workers as well, and contempt for those who were
idle or lazy.
The Protestant
ethic, which gave "moral sanction to profit making through
hard work, organization, and rational calculation" (Yankelovich,
1981, p. 247), spread throughout Europe and to America through
the Protestant sects. In particular, the English Puritans,
the French Huguenots, and the Swiss and Dutch Reformed subscribed
to Calvinist theology that was especially conducive to productivity
and capital growth (Lipset, 1990). As time passed, attitudes
and beliefs which supported hard work became secularized,
and were woven into the norms of Western culture (Lipset,
1990; Rodgers, 1978; Rose, 1985; Super, 1982). Weber (1904,
1905) especially emphasized the popular writings of Benjamin
Franklin as an example of how, by the eighteenth century,
diligence in work, scrupulous use of time, and deferment of
pleasure had become a part of the popular philosophy of work
in the Western world.
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.
The
Work Ethic in the Information Age
Just as
the people of the mid-nineteenth century encountered tremendous
cultural and social change with the dawn of the industrial
age, the people of the late twentieth century experienced
tremendous cultural and social shifts with the advent of the
information age. Toffler (1980) likened these times of change
to waves washing over the culture, bringing with it changes
in norms and expectations, as well as uncertainty about the
future.
Since
1956 (Naisbitt, 1984) white-collar workers in technical, managerial,
and clerical positions have outnumbered workers in blue-collar
jobs. Porat (1977), in a study for the U.S. Department of
Commerce, examined over 400 occupations in 201 industries.
He determined that in 1967, the economic contribution of jobs
primarily dealing with production of information, as compared
with goods-producing jobs, accounted for 46% of the GNP and
more than 53% of the income earned. Some jobs in manufacturing
and industry also became more technical and necessitated a
higher level of thinking on the job as machines were interfaced
with computers and control systems became more complex.
Yankelovich
and Immerwahr (1984) contrasted the work required of most
people during the industrial age with the work of the information
age. Industrial age jobs were typically low-discretion, required
little decisionmaking, and were analyzed and broken into simple
tasks which required very little thinking or judgement on
the part of workers. Information age jobs, in contrast, were
high-discretion and required considerable thinking and decisionmaking
on the part of workers (Miller, 1986). In the workplace characterized
by high-discretion, the work ethic became a much more important
construct than it was during the manipulative era of machines.
Maccoby (1988) emphasized the importance, in this setting,
of giving employees authority to make decisions which would
meet the needs of customers as well as support the goals of
their own companies.
As high-discretion,
information age jobs provided opportunities for greater self-expression
by workers, people began to find more self-fulfillment in
their work. Yankelovich and Harmon (1988) reported that a
significant transformation in the meaning of the work ethic
resulted. Throughout history, work had been associated with
pain, sacrifice, and drudgery. The previously mentioned Greek
word for work, ponos, also meant "pain." For the Hebrews
as well as for the medieval Christians, the unpleasantness
of work was associated with Divine punishment for man's sin.
The Protestant ethic maintained that work was a sacrifice
that demonstrated moral worthiness, and it stressed the importance
of postponed gratification. With the information age, however,
came work which was perceived as good and rewarding in itself.
Most workers were satisfied with their work and wanted to
be successful in it (Wattenberg, 1984).
According
the Yankelovich and Harmon (1988), the work ethic of the 1980's
stressed skill, challenge, autonomy, recognition, and the
quality of work produced. Autonomy was identified as a particularly
important factor in worker satisfaction with their jobs. Motivation
to work involved trust, caring, meaning, self-knowledge, challenge,
opportunity for personal growth, and dignity (Maccoby, 1988;
Walton, 1974). Workers were seeking control over their work
and a sense of empowerment and many information age jobs were
conducive to meeting these needs. As a result, the work ethic
was not abandoned during the information age, but was transformed
to a state of relevance not found in most industrial age occupations.
Even though
the information age was well established by the 1980's and
1990's, not all jobs were high-discretion. Some occupations
continued to consist primarily of manual labor and allowed
minimal opportunity for worker involvement in decisionmaking.
In addition, authoritarian forms of management continued to
be utilized and the potential of the work ethic was wasted.
Statistics reported by Yankelovich and Immerwahr (1984) indicated
that by the early 1980's, 43% of the workforce perceived their
jobs as high-discretion and 21% of the workforce perceived
their jobs as low-discretion. The high-discretion workers
were likely to be better educated, to be in white-collar or
service jobs, and to have experienced technological changes
in their work. The low-discretion workers were more likely
to be union members, to be in blue-collar jobs, and to be
working in positions characterized by dirt, noise, and pollution.
The
Work Ethic and Empowerment
As a result
of the rapid changes associated with the Information Age workplace,
codified and systematized knowledge not limited to a specific
organizational context was important during the 1980's and
1990's (Maccoby, 1983). Higher levels of education became
necessary along with skills at solving problems, managing
people, and applying the latest information to the tasks at
hand. With increased education, higher expectations and aspirations
for careers emerged.
Young
people, in particular, entering the workforce with high school
and college educations, expected opportunities for advancement
(Maccoby, 1983; Sheehy, 1990). They anticipated that talent
and hard work would be the basis for success rather than chance
or luck. In essence, information age workers expected application
of a positive work ethic to result in rewards, and they sometimes
became impatient if progress was not experienced in a relatively
short period of time (Sheehy, 1990).
For workers
who acquired positions of supervision or ownership, motivation
to accomplish personal goals through success in the organization
enhanced the expression of work ethic attributes. Barnard
(1938) identified the process of persons in an organization
coordinating their activities to attain common goals as important
to the well-being of the organization. One of the essential
elements for this process was the creation and allocation
of satisfaction among individuals (Barnard, 1938).
Further
explanation for organizational behavior was provided by a
model developed by Getzels and Guba (Getzels, 1968). The major
elements of the model were institution, role, and expectation
which formed the normative dimension of activity in a social
system; and individual, personality, and need-disposition
which constituted the personal dimension of activity in a
social system (Getzels, 1968). To the extent that a person's
work ethic beliefs influenced personality and need-disposition,
the observed behavior of that individual within the context
of the workplace would be affected. Particularly in the high-discretion
workplace of the information age, role and expectations found
within the workplace would tend to be reinforced by a strong
work ethic.
Other
Changes in the Workplace
Besides
changes in the jobs people performed, changes in the levels
of education required for those jobs, and changes in the extent
to which people were given control or empowerment in their
work, the workforce of the 1980's and 1990's reflected a larger
number of women and a reduced number of workers older than
65. Changes in gender and age of workers had a significant
impact on the culture of the later twentieth century and influenced
the pattern of work related norms such as the work ethic.
Rodgers
(1978) told of the growing restlessness of women in the late
1800's and the early 1900's. As the economic center of society
was moved out of the home or workshop and into the factory,
women were left behind. Some women became operatives in textile
mills, office workers, or salesclerks, and increased numbers
were employed as teachers (Sawhill, 1974). Women comprised
a relatively small percentage of the workforce, however, and
their wages were about half that of men. Those who labored
at housework and child-rearing received no pay at all and
often were afforded little respect or appreciation for what
they did.
It was
not until World War II and the years following that women
began to enter the workplace in great numbers. In 1900 women
made up 18% of the nation's workforce, but by 1947 they comprised
28% of the workforce (Levitan & Johnson, 1983). By 1980
42.5% of the nation's workers were women (Stencel, 1981).
In 1990 the number of women workers was approaching 50% of
the workforce, and Naisbitt and Aburdene (1990) reported that
women held 39.3% of all executive, administrative, and management
jobs. Due to the increase in the number of women working outside
the home, their attitudes about work have become a significant
influence on the work ethic in the contemporary workplace.
Comparisons
of attitudes of men and women in the workplace have shown
that men tended to be more concerned with earning a good income,
having freedom from close supervision, having leadership opportunities,
and having a job that enhanced their social status. Women
were inclined to seek job characteristics which allowed them
to help others, to be original and creative, to progress steadily
in their work, and to work with people rather than things
(Lyson, 1984). Women, more than men, also tended to seek personal
benefits such as enjoyment, pride, fulfillment, and personal
challenge (Bridges, 1989).
Another
trend which shaped the workforce of the later twentieth century
was an increase in the number of older workers who retired
from their jobs. Statistics reported by Quinn (1983) showed
that in 1950, persons 65 years old and older comprised 45.8%
of the workforce as compared to 18.4% in 1981. Part of this
trend can be explained by the continued shift away from agriculture
and self-employment--occupations which traditionally had high
older worker participation rates. In addition, increased provision
for retirement income, as a result of pensions or other retirement
plans, has removed the financial burden which necessitated
work for many older adults in the past.
Deans
(1972) noted a trend on the part of younger workers to view
work differently than older workers. He found less acceptance,
among young people entering the workforce, of the concept
that hard work was a virtue and a duty and less upward striving
by young workers compared to that of their parents and grandparents.
Yankelovich (1981) reported findings which contradicted the
view that younger workers were less committed to the work
ethic, but he did find a decline in belief that hard work
would pay off. This was a significant shift because pay and
"getting ahead" were the primary incentives management used
to encourage productivity during the industrial age. If economic
reward had lost its ability to motivate workers, then productivity
could be expected to decline, in the absence of some other
reason for working hard (Yankelovich, 1981). Within this context,
the work ethic, and a management style which unfettered it,
was a significant factor for maintaining and increasing performance.
Influences
Shaping the Contemporary Work Ethic
The work
ethic is a cultural norm that places a positive moral value
on doing a good job and is based on a belief that work has
intrinsic value for its own sake (Cherrington, 1980; Quinn,
1983; Yankelovich & Immerwahr, 1984). Like other cultural
norms, a person's adherence to or belief in the work ethic
is principally influenced by socialization experiences during
childhood and adolescence. Through interaction with family,
peers, and significant adults, a person "learns to place a
value on work behavior as others approach him in situations
demanding increasing responsibility for productivity" (Braude,
1975, p. 134). Based on praise or blame and affection or anger,
a child appraises his or her performance in household chores,
or later in part-time jobs, but this appraisal is based on
the perspective of others. As a child matures, these attitudes
toward work become internalized, and work performance is less
dependent on the reactions of others.
Children
are also influenced by the attitudes of others toward work
(Braude, 1975). If a parent demonstrates a dislike for a job
or a fear of unemployment, children will tend to assimilate
these attitudes. Parents who demonstrate a strong work ethic
tend to impart a strong work ethic to their children.
Another
significant factor shaping the work attitudes of people is
the socialization which occurs in the workplace. As a person
enters the workplace, the perceptions and reactions of others
tend to confirm or contradict the work attitudes shaped in
childhood (Braude, 1975). The occupational culture, especially
the influence of an "inner fraternity" of colleagues, has
a significant impact on the attitudes toward work and the
work ethic which form part of each person's belief system.
Among
the mechanisms provided by society to transfer the culture
to young people is the public school. One of the functions
of schools is to foster student understanding of cultural
norms, and in some cases to recognize the merits of accepting
them. Vocational education, for example, has as a stated goal
that it will promote the work ethic (Gregson, 1991; Miller,
1985). Reubens (1974) listed "inculcation of good work attitudes"
as one of the highest priorities for high school education.
In the absence of early socialization which supports good
work attitudes, schools should not be expected to completely
transform a young person's work ethic orientation, but enlightening
students about what the work ethic is, and why it is important
to success in the contemporary workplace, should be a component
of secondary education.
References
- Anthony,
P. D. (1977). The ideology of work. Great Britain:
Tavistock.
- Barnard,
C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
- Bernstein,
P. (1988). The work ethic: Economics, not religion. Business
Horizons, 31(3), 8-11.
- Braude,
L. (1975). Work and workers. New York: Praeger.
- Bridges,
J. S. (1989). Sex differences in occupational values. Sex-Roles:
A Journal of Research, 20, 205-211.
- Cherrington,
D. J. (1980). The work ethic: Working values and values
that work. New York: AMACOM.
- Daft,
R. L., & Steers, R. M. (1986). Organizations: A micro/macro
approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Co.
- Deans,
R. C. (1972). Productivity and the new work ethic. In W.
B. Dickenson, Jr. (Ed.), Editorial research reports on
the American work ethic (pp. 1-20). Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Quarterly.
- Getzels,
J. W., Lipham, J. M., & Campbell, R. F. (1968). Educational
administration as a social process. New York: Harper
& Row.
- Gilbert,
J. B. (1977). Work without salvation. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Gregson,
J. A. (1991). Work values and attitudes instruction as viewed
by secondary trade and industrial education instructors.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 28(4),
34-51.
- Herzberg,
F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation
to work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
- Holy
Bible: New International Version (NIV). (1973). Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan.
- Jaggi,
B. (1988). A comparative analysis of worker participation
in the United States and Europe. In Dlugos, G., Dorow, W.,
Weiermair, K., and Danesy, F. C. (Eds.), Management under
differing labour market and employment systems (pp.
443-454). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
- Levitan,
S. A. & Johnson, C. M. (1983). The survival of work.
In Barbash, J., Lampman, R. J., Levitan, S. A., & Tyler,
G. (Eds.), The work ethic: A critical analysis (pp.
1-25). Madison, Wisc.: Industrial Relations Research Association.
- Lipset,
S. M. (1990). The work ethic - then and now. Public Interest,
Winter 1990, 61-69.
- Maccoby,
M. (1988). Why work. New York: Simon and Schuster.
- Maywood,
A. G. (1982). Vocational education and the work ethic. Canadian
Vocational Journal, 18(3), 7-12.
- Miller,
M. D. (1985). Principles and a philosophy for vocational
education. Columbus, OH: Ohio State.
- Miller,
W. F. (1986). Emerging technologies and their implications
for America. USA Today, 115, November 1986,
60-65.
- Naisbitt,
J. (1984). Megatrends: Ten new directions transforming
our lives. New York: Warner.
- Naisbitt,
J., & Aburdene, P. (1990). Megatrends 2000. New
York: Morrow.
- Porat,
M. U. (1977). The information economy: Definition and
measurement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
- Quinn,
J. F. (1983). The work ethic and retirement. In Barbash,
J., Lampman, R. J., Levitan, S. A., & Tyler, G. (Eds.),
The work ethic: A critical analysis (pp. 87-100).
Madison, Wisc.: Industrial Relations Research Association.
- Reubens,
B. G. (1974). Vocational education for all in high school?
In J. O'Toole (Ed.), Work and the quality of life
(pp. 299-337). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- Rodgers,
D. T. (1978). The work ethic in industrial America, 1850-1920.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
- Rose,
M. (1985). Reworking the work ethic: Economic values
and socio-cultural politics. London: Schocken.
- Sawhill,
I. V. (1974). Perspectives on women and work in America.
In J. O'Toole (Ed.), Work and the quality of life
(pp. 88-105). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- Sheehy,
J. W. (1990). New work ethic is frightening. Personnel
Journal. 69(6), 28-36.
- Stencel,
S. (1981). Workers' changing expectations. In H. Gimlin
(Ed.), Editorial research reports on work life in the
1980s (pp. 45-68). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
- Super,
D. E. (1982). The relative importance of work: Models and
measures for meaningful data. The Counseling Psychologist,
10(4), 95-103.
- Tilgher,
A. (1930). Homo faber: Work through the ages. Translated
by D. C. Fisher. New York: Harcourt Brace.
- Toffler,
A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Bantam.
- Walton,
R. E. (1974). Alienation and innovation in the workplace.
In J. O'Toole (Ed.), Work and the quality of life
(pp. 227-245). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- Wattenberg,
B. J. (1984). The good news is the bad news is wrong.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
- Weber,
M. (1904, 1905). Die protestantische ethik und der geist
des kapitalismus. Archiv fur sozialwissenschaft.
20-21. Translated by T. Parsons. The protestant
ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Charles
Scibner's Sons.
- Webster
Encyclopedia. (1985). Des Moines: Meredith.
- Yankelovich,
D. (1981). New rules: Searching for self-fulfillment
in a world turned upside down. New York: Random House.
- Yankelovich,
D. & Harmon, S. (1988). Starting with the people.
Boston: Houghton Miffin.
- Yankelovich,
D. & Immerwahr, J. (1984). Putting the work ethic to
work. Society, 21(2), 58-76.
|