Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:59:03.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cohesion and Commitment in Employers' Organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

Heinz Hartmann
Heinz Hartmann
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Articles
Information
World Politics , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , April 1959 , pp. 475 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 It is commonly presumed that cohesion and commitment vary proportionately, in the sense that a thorough acceptance of group values will simultaneously consolidate the formal union of members. It should be recognized, however, that certain values are accepted precisely because such adherence in many respects is subject to individual discretion. In this case, the group does not examine too closely the quality of each member's commitment; two examples would be adherence to values like social equality or obedience to the law. If acceptance were rigidly enforced, die group might well be unable to maintain its cohesion. In other words, some values are conducive to integration because mey need be accepted only superficially. There is reason to assume that this is more often true of general values than of specific ones.

2 Conseil National du Patronat Français.

3 Union des Chefs d'Entreprise. Action pour des Structures Humaines.

4 He continued: “But they rendered us capable of learning everything.”

5 Eugene Burgess, “Management in France,” unpublished manuscript, p. 22.

6 Short for CGPME, or Confédération Générale des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises.

7 Association des Cadres Dirigeants et de l'Industrie pour le Progrès Social et Economique.

8 In contrast to the functional authority of the expert, this other authority must be “formal” or “final”—i.e., founded on such non-rational bases as tradition, charisma, or ultimate values.

9 Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie.

10 Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Arbeitgeberverbände (BDA).

11 Deutscher Industrie- und Handelstag (DIHT).

12 Arbeitsgemeinschaft Selbständiger Unternehmer.

13 The major exceptions to this rule are the “labor directors” in the codetermination industries, who are nominated by the trade unions.

14 Jahresbericht des BDI, May 1, 1957–April 30, 1958, pp. 70–71.

15 Gundlach, Gustav, “Der Unternehmer in christlicher Schau,” in Beitrag zur Förderung des Unternehmernachwuchses, ed. by BDI (Drucksache, No. 28), Bergisch-Gladbach, Heider, n.d., p. 83.Google Scholar

16 Unternehmer in der Politik, ed. by Gustav Stein, Düsseldorf, Econ Verlag, 1954, pp. 9, 11.

17 Ibid., p. 24.

18 Ibid., p. 54.