However, most shares in contemporary (and even early 20th-century) corporations have been held by a relatively small number of people. This means that the upper-class and upper-middle-class become part-owners of many organizations. It ripples out from here. These wealthy citizens have had a great, overriding influence on the short-term (quarterly) priorities of the organizations in which they have invested. The bottom line prevails when priorities are being set. A few people are making all the important decisions with immediate profit and growth at the forefront of their minds.
Just as the capitalist focus on profit and growth had little direct impact on the women we studied, centralized control by a few people in their organizations probably did not directly impact the lives and labor of the Mill Girls or the Harvey Girls. However, there is a strong indirect impact in both cases. A small number of powerful men controlled the mill and restaurant operations. As in many 19th and 20th-century organizations, control was centralized and often arbitrary. The new “golden rule” prevailed: “those with the gold will rule.” And only a few men held most of the gold and all the rules in New England mills and Harvey restaurants. Only occasional collective resistance by the Mill workers provided any corrective action in response to the arbitrary decision-making of the powerful owners.
Competition
In most capitalist societies, there is a constant search for competitive advantage among the men (and some women) who are leading organizations. Market share reigns supreme. “How are we doing in comparison to others making the same (or a similar) product or providing the same (or a similar) service?” Where are we now on the Fortune 500 list? Minimal attention is given to collaboration or cooperation among organizations that might lead to overall expansion in the market (yielding benefits for everyone) (Kanter, 1994). Rather than collaboration, we are likely to find conquest—producing mergers and acquisitions and often brutal takeovers.
The Fred Harvey story is one of individual success in being creative and outdoing the competition. As we already noted, Harvey’s innovations played a major role in bringing about the fast-food industry and restaurant chains. For good or ill (in terms of contemporary eating habits and nutrition), Fred Harvey can be praised for outdoing his competition ethically and fairly. Were there “victims” of his innovative policies and practices? Yes.
We need only point to the death of many independent restaurants. Were the women (and men) working for Fred Harvey harmed by what he imposed? Probably not in the same manner or to the same extent as women working in the Mills. These New England workers were harmed (physically and emotionally) by “innovations” that Mill owners introduced. Yet, we should also note that the Harvey Girls were often required to “sell their souls” (or at least their preferred ways of being in the world) so that they might comply with Fred Harvey’s dictums. Like the Mill Girls, the Harvey Girls made a major investment, but received few benefits.
