There is one final point to be made about profitability that brings us back to our initial statement about capitalism. Estes reminds us that employees are investing in the organization. They should ultimately be entitled to some return on their investment or at least be at the table when decisions are being made about the distribution of profits. Some workers do have a say and may even sit at the table. Historically, it has been through collective action and the threat or enactment of a strike.
An important question emerging from the history of labor movements: Do those fighting for equity of pay and safe working conditions establish their sense of self-worth through their actions? And does their self-worth increase when sitting with the monied folks? Alternatively, is this a false sense of Worth if it is gained by threat and a compelled granting of positional power? Furthermore, are the workers “put in their place” at the table? Do they have any actual power when confronted by the inside knowledge and monetary control held by residents of the C-Suite and well-positioned board members?
Product/service growth
As already noted, capitalism requires growth for wealth to accrue. Thus, Worth is aligned with the presence or prospect of growth. Concurrently, accrued wealth enables new investments, creating a reciprocal, symbiotic relationship between wealth, size, and Worth. With increased capacity to produce goods and services, a growth-oriented organization must find a way to market, sell, and distribute these goods and services. Thus, growth in the capacity for production and services is inevitably accompanied by growth in the size of marketing, sales, and distribution units within the organization. In a modern organization, one of the best ways to increase revenues is by convincing a specific population that there is a great need for the product or service of this organization.
Some critical factors inform the organizational dynamics associated with growth. First, the expanding size of an organization will typically lead to increased Differentiation of functions (division of labor). Second, this differentiation requires an increased demand for the Integration of these functions. This is the role played by management (and “bottom-line” accountability) (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1969). The focus on growth means that there is an inevitable (and necessary) increase in the size of indirect coordinating functions (management) of the organization (Bergquist, 1993). More people are now required to keep “everything together” (integration). How does the organization keep all of its departments moving in the same direction and at an appropriate speed?
It is important to note that the concept of “management” did not emerge in most societies until industrialization and capitalization led to rapid growth in the size and complexity of organizations. Furthermore, managers tend to create the need for even more managers. It seems that management is itself a major growth industry in modern societies. This is the case even in the field of management education. During the past century, MBA programs have grown more quickly in higher education institutions worldwide than virtually any other degree program. Furthermore, Worth is often found (at least indirectly) in the curriculum of MBA programs. Managerial case studies that feature “best practices” are frequently chosen because of the Worth that a particular management practice produces. This Worth is aligned with such measures as productivity, increase in market share, and, most importantly, profit. While these case studies might feature such intangibles as innovation, risk-taking behavior, and sometimes ethics, they rarely focus on societal impact (fostering the “greater good”).
