Model of the Corporation

The traditional model of the corporation is a hierarchical and pyramidal structure. A company like Bombardier Inc. or Montreal employs hundreds of people worldwide. At the top there is only one chairman: There is only one Laurent Beaudoin and it is his picture that is featured when the Toronto Star publishes an article on the company's prospects (Yew,2002). He is at the apex of the pyramid and the top of the hierarchy.

This sort of a structure relies on information and direction being passed down through the hierarchy. When top management decides to enter a new market such as executive jets, for example, they direct designers, engineers and marketers to make the necessary plans and these plans then determine the models that workers assemble.

In general terms, these workers are excluded from two aspects of the corporation. In the first place they are not decision makers. They execute decisions that are made for them by people higher in the hierarchy. Secondly, they are paid their wage regardless of the company's profitability (or lack thereof). This has given rise to a situation where corporations and employees, particularly unionized employees, are inclined to view their relationship as an adversarial one (Yew,2002).

Recently, however, a variety of programs designed to diffuse decision-making and give employees a larger role in decision-making have been developed. Also, programs have been developed that introduce profit sharing in the sense that an individual employee's wage is linked to the profitability of the company as a whole or his individual department or work team. The following paper will be presented a normative, positive and strategic analysis of corporate decision-making and profit sharing.

Normative

Profit sharing and shared decision-making or diffused decision-making are generally defended in terms of productivity and profitability. That is to say their proponents support them because they are believed to, ultimately, improve the performance and profitability of the corporation. This is not entirely surprising in a capitalist system where profitability is referred to as the 'bottom-line.' Certainly, profitability and productivity are two of the most important categories to be used in evaluating profit sharing and shared decision-making.

However, there are also a host of normative reasons that encourage the introduction of profit sharing and shared decision-making. Writing in Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management Leona and Florkowski identify many normative or ethical/moral benefits from the development of profit sharing and shared decision-making. Writing from a human resources perspective they emphasize better employer-employee relations and enhanced opportunities for employee development personally and professionally (Florkowski, 1992).

Undeniably, in a hierarchical organization the employer-employee and even the supervisor employee relationship are not equal. The employee must follow the guidance of his superiors. However, at the same time, this is not a black and white issue. Some bosses are better than others. Some are more considerate of personal circumstances or flexible, others may be less tolerant. Supervision is an art as much as a science and involves negotiations within constraints. In profit sharing and shared decision making provide a forum for employers and managers to manifest their respect for their employees. In terms of human rights, they are the right thing to do because they are respectful of the dignity and autonomy of the individual employee. (Hopefully this will create motivated and productive employees who make the company profitable-the positive analysis but it also has a separate normative aspect) (Florkowski, 1992).

Similarly, shared decision-making expresses respect for the autonomy of the individual employee. It allows them to express how they feel their work is best done. At a higher level it might allow them to express a role in the direction of their career. A manager might express a preference for a transfer from North America to Asia, or from engineering into marketing. Work is a large portion of each person's day: Granting them greater responsibility of what they do and respectful of human rights, individual dignity and job and life-satisfaction.

In today business world, profit sharing and shared decision making promote respect for employees at all levels as individuals and human beings. This will reduce employee stress and increase job satisfaction. Both of these developments demonstrate respect for the rights and human dignity of workers and employees. Therefore, normatively, they represent the key benefits of profit sharing and shared decision-making.

Positive

In 1994 John A Wagner III composed an overview of the evidence gathered up to that point on programs designed to increase employee input into decision making. Not surprisingly Wagner concluded that the increases in participation in making decisions (and, most importantly, employees' perceptions) is positively related to both psychological and practical benefits: Employees report greater job satisfaction and performance increases can be statistically verified. These are not necessarily surprising results. However, the degree of change was so small that Wagner suggested that the practical benefits of the programs are virtually nonexistent in the fact that strictly economic benefits could