Wage Desert and the Success of Organisations
Keywords:Wage Desert, Remuneration, Success of Organizations, Respect, Autonomy
AbstractPeople often apply the concept of desert when deciding how to respond to various circumstances and they believe it is appropriate and morally required that they do so. More specifically, desert has long been a prominent (if not the paramount) feature of discussions concerning just compensation. In this essay I argue that providing employees the compensation (remuneration) they deserve – that is, realising wage desert – is essential to demonstrating adequate respect for employees, which, in turn, greatly facilitates the ability of organisations to attract and retain qualified, competent employees and provides employees with a powerful motivation for performing to the best of their ability. In so doing, wage desert offers an effective means for helping to secure and maintain an organisation’s capacity to function as desired and, by extension, be successful. Hence, both for moral and prudential reasons it seems preferable for all involved that the concept of desert be used when determining employee remuneration.
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, translated by W.D. Ross. Kitchener: Batoche Books, 1999 [350 B.C.E.], online at https://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/aristotle/Ethics.pdf (accessed 2016-10-24).
Bloom, Matt. ‘The Ethics of Compensation Systems’, Journal of Business Ethics 52:2 (2004), pp. 149–152. DOI: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000035910.90075.3d
Dillon, Robin. ‘Respect’ (2014), in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by
Edward Zalta, online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/respect/ (accessed 2014-02-19).
Feather, Norman. Values, Achievement, and Justice: Studies in the Psychology of Deservingness. New York: Kluwer Academic, 1999.
Feinberg, Joel. ‘Justice and Personal Desert,’ in Doing and Deserving by Joel Feinberg. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970, pp. 55-94.
Gallie, Walter. ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1956), pp. 167-198. DOI: 10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167
Gosepath, Stefan. ‘Equality’ (2007), in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward Zalta, online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/#ProEqu (accessed 2016-10-19).
Hampshire, Stuart. ‘A New Philosophy of the Just Society’, New York Review of Books 24 February, 1972, pp. 34-39.
Hospers, John. ‘What Means this Freedom?’, in Determinism and Freedom in the Age of Modern Science, edited by Sidney Hook (New York, NY: Collier, 1961), pp. 126–142.
Jenkins, Ryan. ‘You’ve Earned It!: A Criticism of Sher’s Account of Desert in Wages’, Social Philosophy Today 27 (2011), pp. 75-86. DOI: 10.5840/socphiltoday2011276
Kagan, Shelly. ‘Comparative Desert’, in Desert and Justice, edited by Serena Olsaretti. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003, pp. 93-122.
Kleinig, John. ‘The Concept of Desert’, American Philosophical Quarterly 8:1 (1971), pp. 71-78.
Lucas, J. R. Responsibility. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
McLeod, Owen. ‘Desert and Wages’, Utilitas 8:2 (1996), pp. 205-221. DOI: 10.1017/S0953820800004878
McLeod, Owen. ‘Desert’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward Zalta, online at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desert/ (accessed 2014-02-11).
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism, in On Liberty and Other Essays, edited and introduction by John Gray. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998 , pp. 131-201.
Miller, David. The Principles of Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Moriarty, Jeffrey. ‘Against the Asymmetry of Desert’, Nous 37:3 (2003), pp. 518-536. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0068.00449
Moriarty, Jeffrey. ‘Deserving Jobs, Deserving Wages’, in Normative Theory and Business Ethics, edited by Jeffery Smith. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009, pp. 119-146.
Moriarty, Jeffrey. ‘Justice in Compensation: A Defense’, Business Ethics: A European Review 21:1 (2012), pp. 64-76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2011.01641.x
Pojman, Louis. ‘Does Equality Trump Desert?’, in What Do We Deserve? A Reader on Justice and Desert, edited by Louis Pojman and Owen McLeod. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 283-297.
Pojman, Louis. ‘Justice as Desert’, Queensland University of Technology Law & Justice Journal 1:1 (2001), pp. 88-109.
Rachels, James. ‘Punishment and Desert’, in Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, 3rd edition, edited by Hugh LaFollette. Oxford: Blackwell, 2007, pp. 510-518.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Roemer, John. Equality of Opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Schmidtz, David. ‘How to Deserve’, Political Theory 30:6 (2002), pp. 774-799. DOI: 10.1177/0090591702238203
Sher, George. ‘Effort, Ability, and Personal Desert’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 8:4 (1979), pp. 361-376.
Sher, George. Desert. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.
Sher, George. ‘Effort and Imagination’, in Desert and Justice, edited by Serena Olsaretti. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003, pp. 205-217.
Smilansky, Saul. ‘Responsibility and Desert: Defending the Connection’, Mind 105:417 (1996), pp. 157-163. DOI: 10.1093/mind/105.417.157
Tam, Eric. ‘The Taming of Desert: Why Rawls’ Deontological Liberalism is Unfriendly to Desert’. Paper presented at the Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 30-June 1, 2003.
Zaitchik, Alan. ‘On Deserving to Deserve’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 6:4 (1977), pp. 370-388.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2017 Young
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.