Pay Systems, Authority and Conflict
Conflict, as it is normally understood, involves intentionally hostile action. In linking pay attitudes to pay conflict, therefore, one has to show how attitudes can lead to the formation of hostile intentions. In Chapter 2, however, I argued that there was no logical or psychological basis for linking attitudes-to-objects (e.g. to pay) with attitudes-to-future-actions (e.g. intentions) whether hostile or otherwise. The link between the two can only be a substantive one, arising from the social meaning of the situation which underlies both types of attitude. Thus a theory linking pay attitudes to conflict is not a special kind of attitude theory, but a sociological theory of conflictful situations which happen to involve pay.
KeywordsAuthority System Authority Relation Modern Organisation Hostile Action Hide Meaning
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Crozier, M., The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (Tavistock, London, 1963).Google Scholar
- 2.Parsons, T., Introduction to: Weber, M., The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation (Free Press, New York, 1947).Google Scholar
- 3.Weber, op. cit., p. 248 and elsewhere.Google Scholar
- 4.Dahrendorf, R., Class and Class Conflict in an Industrial Society (Routledge&Kegan Paul, London, 1959).Google Scholar
- 5.The concepts used in this argument are Weber’s—Weber, M., op. cit.Google Scholar
- 6.Crozier, M., op. cit.Google Scholar
- 8.Roy, D., quoted in Whyte, W. F., Money and Motivation (Harper&Row, New York, 1955) (see p. 59 ff).Google Scholar