Proximal versus distal temporal orientation in an infinite game: lessons from the 1892 Homestead Massacre

IF 0.9 Q4 MANAGEMENT
Erik Taylor
{"title":"Proximal versus distal temporal orientation in an infinite game: lessons from the 1892 Homestead Massacre","authors":"Erik Taylor","doi":"10.1108/jmh-05-2023-0043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Working conditions, pay rates and the rights of workers to collectively negotiate have become important points of discussions in recent years, with support for unions and union applications rising to levels long unseen in America. In many instances, though, companies have responded aggressively. This is not the first time such a dynamic has played out in American business. This study aims to take a fresh look at one of America’s most prominent historical disputes between labor and ownership – the Homestead Massacre of 1892 – to glean lessons from that conflict that remain relevant to today’s business environment.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>This study adopts game theory and the principles of repeated interaction to assess how differing discount factors led to differences in time orientations between the workers and the Carnegie company. These differing time orientations affected both the strategy each side deployed in the negotiations and the payoffs received by the parties. Letters, contemporary news reports and histories of the events leading up to and immediately following the 1892 Homestead Massacre are qualitatively analyzed with a genealogical pragmatic approach.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>Differences in temporal orientation between management and workers exacerbated the conflict, with the workers adopting a more cooperative stance and distal time orientation, while the Carnegie company negotiated with a proximal time orientation and played to “win” a game that, in fact, could not be fully won or lost given its infinitely repeating nature. The result was a short-term victory for the Carnegie company but with long-term negative consequences that highlight the suboptimal outcome the company achieved by playing a proximal strategy in an infinite game.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>Although the incident at Homestead is a well-studied labor dispute, many of the themes that preceded the incident have resurfaced in the modern work context. This work, by adopting game theory as an analytical framework, provides new insights into management mistakes that led to the labor conflict and lessons for what present-day managers can do to avoid exacerbating labor strife.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":45819,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management History","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jmh-05-2023-0043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Working conditions, pay rates and the rights of workers to collectively negotiate have become important points of discussions in recent years, with support for unions and union applications rising to levels long unseen in America. In many instances, though, companies have responded aggressively. This is not the first time such a dynamic has played out in American business. This study aims to take a fresh look at one of America’s most prominent historical disputes between labor and ownership – the Homestead Massacre of 1892 – to glean lessons from that conflict that remain relevant to today’s business environment.

Design/methodology/approach

This study adopts game theory and the principles of repeated interaction to assess how differing discount factors led to differences in time orientations between the workers and the Carnegie company. These differing time orientations affected both the strategy each side deployed in the negotiations and the payoffs received by the parties. Letters, contemporary news reports and histories of the events leading up to and immediately following the 1892 Homestead Massacre are qualitatively analyzed with a genealogical pragmatic approach.

Findings

Differences in temporal orientation between management and workers exacerbated the conflict, with the workers adopting a more cooperative stance and distal time orientation, while the Carnegie company negotiated with a proximal time orientation and played to “win” a game that, in fact, could not be fully won or lost given its infinitely repeating nature. The result was a short-term victory for the Carnegie company but with long-term negative consequences that highlight the suboptimal outcome the company achieved by playing a proximal strategy in an infinite game.

Originality/value

Although the incident at Homestead is a well-studied labor dispute, many of the themes that preceded the incident have resurfaced in the modern work context. This work, by adopting game theory as an analytical framework, provides new insights into management mistakes that led to the labor conflict and lessons for what present-day managers can do to avoid exacerbating labor strife.

无限游戏中的近端与远端时间定向:1892 年家园大屠杀的教训
目的近年来,工作条件、工资标准和工人集体谈判的权利已成为讨论的重点,对工会和工会申请的支持上升到了美国长期以来从未有过的水平。不过,在许多情况下,企业都做出了积极回应。这种动态在美国企业界并非首次出现。本研究旨在重新审视美国历史上最著名的劳资纠纷之一--1892 年的家园大屠杀--从这场冲突中汲取对当今商业环境仍有借鉴意义的经验教训。本研究采用博弈论和重复互动原则,评估不同的折扣因素如何导致工人和卡内基公司之间的时间取向差异。这些不同的时间取向既影响了双方在谈判中采取的策略,也影响了双方得到的回报。研究结果管理层和工人之间时间取向的差异加剧了冲突,工人们采取了更加合作的立场和远期时间取向,而卡内基公司则以近期时间取向进行谈判,并试图 "赢得 "一场游戏,但事实上,由于其无限重复的性质,这场游戏的输赢是不可能完全确定的。结果是卡内基公司取得了短期的胜利,但却带来了长期的负面影响,凸显了该公司在无限博弈中采取近时策略所取得的次优结果。 原创性/价值虽然霍姆斯特德事件是一起研究得很透彻的劳资纠纷,但该事件之前的许多主题在现代工作环境中再次出现。这部作品采用博弈论作为分析框架,对导致劳资冲突的管理失误提出了新的见解,并为当今的管理者提供了避免激化劳资纠纷的经验教训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
50.00%
发文量
28
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信