Skip to main content
Log in

A Kantian evaluation of Taylorism in the workplace

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

Abstract

A Kantian evaluation of Taylorism in the workplace requires a consideration of four problems; (1) the conditions of agency, (2) the relation of Taylorism to these conditions, (3) an explanation of the method given by the Typic for applying the Categorical Imperative, and (4) the actual application of the Categorical Imperative to Taylorism. An agent who views himself as a performer is distinguished from an agent who is a mere observer of his own actions, and it is argued that Taylorism in effect attempts to remove the purposiveness of action from the workmen and to reduce them to the state of being mere observers of their own actions. Then it is argued that in order for one to attempt to think of a maxim as a universal law, one must posit a universal and necessary connection between the circumstances and the performances and then another such connection between the action and the purpose to be achieved. A model is constructed using heat-seeking machines, and it is argued that a principle analogous to Taylorism could not hold as a universal law for such machines. Thus, Taylorism is not an acceptable solution to the problem of coordinating the activities of self-directed agents within the workplace.

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

  1. Baier, Kurt, ‘Action and Agent’, The Monist, XLIX, (April 1965), p. 194.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Shakespeare, William, Hamlet, III, i, 56–60.

  3. Kant, Immanuel, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by Lewis White Beck, (Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1981), p. 11, Ak. 395.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baier, Kurt, ‘Action and Agent’, pp. 188–194.

  5. Baier, Kurt, ‘Responsibility and Action’, in The Nature of Human Action, edited by Myles Brand, (Scott Foresmen and Company, Glenview, 1970), p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kant, Immanuel, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, p. 11, Ak. 395.

  7. Braverman, Harry, Labor and Monopoly Capital, (Monthly Review Press, New York and London, 1974), pp. 112–121.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kant, Immanuel, (Critique of Practical Reason, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1956), p. 72, Ak. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Practical Reason, p. 73, Ak. 70.)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Dr. Michael K. Green is Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy at SUNY-Oneonta. His most important publications are: ‘Using Nature to Typify Freedom: The Application of the Categorical Imperative’, International Studies in Philosophy (Fall 1982); ‘Marx on Utility and Right’, Political Theory 11, No. 3 (August, 1983), pp. 433–446; and ‘Kant, Crimes Against Nature, and Contraception’, forthcoming in The New Scholasticism.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Green, M.K. A Kantian evaluation of Taylorism in the workplace. J Bus Ethics 5, 165–169 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382758

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382758

Keywords

Navigation