How Corporate Leadership Misleads Workers

Ross A. Jackson, Brian L. Heath

Department of Business & Economics, Wittenberg University, Springfield, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ojbm.2025.134144                

Abstract

Leadership is a complex phenomenon. Notwithstanding legitimate perspectives like servant, collaborative, and distributed leadership, the enactment of corporate leadership most often entails the confluence of position, power, and authority. Within that context, corporate executives under capitalism have unique, formal abilities to direct the actions of subordinates. Bifurcating that authority, corporate executives provide leadership in terms of both the strategic direction of the organization (i.e., where an organization is going) and the organizational incentive structure (i.e., how workers are directed to advance and what workers can expect to obtain through work). In terms of the strategic direction of firms, corporate leadership can be relatively adroit at defining an emergent and generative future. In terms of the incentive structure, corporate leadership more frequently than not misleads workers into pursuing individual advancement through promotion rather than the collective improvement of working conditions for all. This critical analysis examined the structure and ideology of capitalism and its enactment and propagation by corporate leadership, discovering that organizational workers find themselves structurally forsaken, cajoled into taking long shots, and ultimately misled. Through the process, the obfuscated ideology residing at the core of worker alienation under capitalism was revealed, providing a basis for solidarity and revolutionary action.

Keywords

Alienation, Capitalism, Critique, Ideology, Management, Revolution, Solidarity

1. Introduction

Leadership has been glorified to a point of widespread social acceptance (Devies et al., 2025; Hambrick & Wowak, 2021; Learmonth & Morrell, 2021). Debating applications and styles of leadership betrays the underlying effectiveness of indoctrination to accept rather than critique leadership itself. It only makes sense to argue about the form and content of leadership if one has already accepted its legitimacy. Arguments about applications presuppose acceptance of the principle. Under capitalist ideology, the point of leadership is first and foremost to ensure that the masses unquestioningly follow whoever those in authority appoint to lead them, thus guaranteeing the continued subjugation of the masses as producing and consuming, politico-economical subjects within the fragmented-social collective (Braverman, 1974; Debord, 2014; Jackson, 2025; Jackson & Heath, 2024). Business schools and executive training courses focus attention on a multitude of competing and interrelated leadership models including autocratic (Ahmed & Simha, 2023; Briker et al., 2020), bureaucratic (Arshad et al., 2021; Lesmana et al., 2022), charismatic (Hofmann, 2023; Machokoto, 2019), coaching (Karlsen & Berg, 2020; Yanovska et al., 2019), delegative (Dawaye, 2025; Zulfikar & Rahman, 2019), democratic (Caillier, 2020; Hilton et al., 2021), participative (Khassawneh & Elrehail, 2022; Wang et al., 2022), transactional (Dong, 2023; Saeed & Mughal, 2019), transformational (Bin Attan & Mahmod, 2019; Kotamena et al., 2020), servant (Hai & Van, 2021; Zargar et al., 2019), and visionary leadership (Karwan et al., 2021; Utomo et al., 2022). So much attention is given to distinguishing among the various forms of leadership and attempting to determine which form of leadership is most appropriate within a given context, that almost no attention is given to the fact that the underlying intent behind each form of corporate leadership is the same—get people to willfully (if not joyfully) do what is necessary for the replication of a system designed to oppress them (i.e., capitalism), while simultaneously convincing them that any improvement outside that system (i.e., revolution) is dangerous, unpatriotic, or impossible (Gilabert, 2019; Lipset, 2019). This is the crux of the corporate (mis)leadership of workers. Whereas aspects of this misleadership are unique to corporations, much of its underlying functioning has operated whenever and wherever an elite minority dominates over subjugated masses (Bergh et al., 2020; Galindo-Silva, 2020). Leadership myths play a role in this class domination.

Myths of leadership have functioned across various groups, societies, and times (Fitzgerald, 2020; Rosenbach et al., 2018; Stone & Patterson, 2023). Leadership myths are often ideological, functioning through forms of storytelling, and are designed to influence the thoughts and actions of those being instructed. Who specifically has been considered a leader is not of particular interest, as the point is to critique rather than perpetuate such a practice. To that end, the identity of any given leader within any given leadership myth is unimportant. It is simply worth noting that examples of leaders are routinely “drawn from popular historical figures” (Benmira & Agboola, 2021: p. 3). Rather than focusing on the identity of a leader, it is the social functioning of the leadership story that ultimately matters from a critical perspective. As indicated by Forster et al. (1999), “story-telling has been part of the fabric of human life throughout history…the use of stories can be used to significantly influence thinking, attitudes and behaviour” (p. 16). Corporate leadership conforms to this pattern (Coker, 2024; Kothari, 2010). Jarnagin and Slocum (2007) explored the application of leadership myths in corporations indicating that, “Mythopoetic Leadership is a framework for developing robust corporate cultures based on myths”, and that “the language of myths helps people make sense out of their organizational life” (p. 290), explaining further that “storytelling is intrinsic to developing corporate mythology” (p. 294). Such corporate myths are frequently structured around individual leaders rather than collectives of workers.

The embodiment of leadership in an individual is important for directing attention away from the inherent power of the masses (Empson et al., 2022; Ladkin, 2020). Under such a parallax view, one sees either the forest or the trees, the leader or the masses; one is unable to see both simultaneously. Even when power is obviously and admittedly collective in nature, there is still an observable drive to define the leadership of that collective power in individualistic terms. Empson et al. (2022) explained that within collective organizations “the construction of the [individual leader] avatar reveals both a persistent attachment to social-cultural discourses of individual leadership and an ongoing sacralization of the heroic leadership narrative” (p. 223). Such a preference is consequential for the social enactment of leadership as it produces what it claims only to be explaining. As Žižek (2006) explained, “parallax means that the bracketing itself produces its object” (emphasis retained, p. 56). Leadership, embodied in individuals, limits the ability of collectives, in this case, workers, to recognize and utilize their latent power as a mass organization. Understanding and transcending this dynamic requires direct and structured, critical analysis.

Problematizing corporate leadership as a largely unrecognized concern for workers is essential for both understanding how corporate leadership misleads workers and liberating oneself and one’s colleagues from its subjugating effects. Such effort benefits from addressing the essential components of corporate leadership domination. The method of this critical analysis is presented (Section 2). This is followed by a presentation of the results (Section 3). Focusing primarily on an examination how corporate workers find themselves structurally forsaken within organizations (Section 3.1), and how they are cajoled into taking long shots to improve their individual rather than collective position (Section 3.2). Transcending this dynamic requires first revealing what has been obfuscated by capitalist ideology, which was explored in the discussion section (Section 4). Lastly, the paper concludes by summarizing the key results and exploring worker solidarity and revolutionary action (Section 5).

2. Method

Critique enables the powerless to combat the powerful (Haugaard, 2022; Saar, 2010; Sangren, 1995). Within the context of this research, critique is envisioned as a means of empowering workers to take on the powerful capitalist ideology and praxis subjugating them as economic producers and consumers. To that end, this research employed critical analysis as a methodological technique designed to challenge the valorization of corporate leadership and its widespread acceptance within capitalist societies. By questioning the legitimacy of corporate leadership, rather than merely debating its applications, forms, and styles, this research sought to uncover the indoctrination that leads workers to accept leadership without conscious thought, examination, or resistance. The approach taken aligns with critical theory (Fuchs, 2021; Marcuse, 2020; Rehbein, 2018), and critical management studies (Alvesson & Willmott, 2011; Beigi et al., 2019; Grey & Willmott, 2005), which aim to reveal and challenge the power dynamics and ideologies that perpetuate social inequalities (Farkas, 2023; Renault, 2020).

The focus of this study, how corporate leadership misleads workers, falls squarely in the space of social science research. Rehbein (2018) suggested that “any social science has to be critical” (p. 50), and that “it is necessary to critically review the social conditions of the subject and the object because they are interdependent with social science itself” (p. 55). This study is critical of the subjugation of workers by corporate elites and managers operating within capitalism and under the sanctioning provided by capitalist ideology. This makes this research political as well as economic. Sangren (1995) explained, “the political virtue explicitly or implicitly claimed in studies framed as interrogations of power is diminished when power is dissociated from intentional action of individuals or collectives (such as social classes, status groups, or communities)” (emphasis retained, p. 4). As such, it is worth reiterating that the focus of this study in one the intentional actions of capitalists, through corporate leadership, to mislead workers. The method used to do this was to critique capitalist ideology, praxis, and stories used to perpetuate capitalist ideology. This approach is consistent with that taken by Beigi et al. (2019) who detailed that a critical analysis of, “organizational storytelling…challenges conventual science, structures and stories of organizations to advance understanding of them in their storied complexity” (p. 447). Such stories and praxis can be difficult to observe and critique due to one’s embeddedness in society. However, Haugaard (2022) explained that it is possible for people to “challenge the society into which they have been socialized, through the conversion of tacit practical knowledge into discursive knowledge that facilitates social resistance through critique” (p. 360). Doing so effectively benefits from a consideration of process.

The critical method employed in this research was comprised of four major elements. The first element consisted of the deconstruction of common leadership myths. To accomplish this task, myths surrounding leadership were critically examined, arguing that myths can serve to maintain class domination and subjugate workers. By focusing on storytelling and the ideological function of leadership myths, it was established that these narratives constrain the thoughts and actions of workers and direct attention away from their collective power and towards that of individual leaders. The second element was focused on exposing the underlying capitalist ideology. Through a critique of the capitalist ideology underpinning corporate leadership, emphasis was given to how capitalist ideology and praxis perpetuates worker subjugation by promoting individual advancement over collective improvement. Critical analysis revealed how capitalist narratives, such as the “rags-to-riches” stories, obfuscate the inherent and intractable antagonism between capital and labor. The third element was focused on revealing structural oppression within capitalism. By examining the roles of executives, managers, and human resources, dynamics as to how organizational structures are designed to protect capitalist interests and isolate workers from each other were explored. Critical analysis was used to assess how those structures prevent the formation of class consciousness and solidarity among workers. Lastly, based on these results and subsequent discussion, a call for worker solidarity and revolutionary action was presented.

The chosen method of a text-based critique was deemed sufficient for this study as it allowed for a comprehensive deconstruction of leadership myths and capitalist ideologies through existing literature and theoretical frameworks. This approach aligns with the objectives of critical theory, which seeks to reveal and challenge entrenched power dynamics and ideologies without the need for primary data collection (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011; Phillips, 2023). By focusing on the narratives and ideologies perpetuated in existing texts, this analysis was able to effectively critique the systemic issues within corporate leadership and capitalist structures. However, it is important to acknowledge the boundary conditions of this approach: the analysis was conceptual and did not incorporate primary data or empirical validation. As such, the findings are interpretive and are intended to provoke thought and discussion rather than provide empirical evidence of the position staked.

Based on the results of the critical analysis, it is argued that true liberation from capitalist subjugation requires dismantling the ideological and structural barriers that prevent workers from recognizing their shared class interests, political and economic, and utilizing their collective power to advance meaningful and lasting social change. This critique of corporate leadership and capitalist ideology is intended to be both thought-provoking and mobilizing. By challenging accepted norms and revealing hidden power dynamics, the aim is to inspire a reevaluation of common leadership practices under corporate capitalism and advocate for revolutionary, transformative change that empowers workers and promotes social justice. To establish that aim, it is useful to examine the results of this study.

3. Results

The results of this critical analysis of the corporate misleadership of workers under capitalist ideology are comprised of two parts. The first subsection focuses on how workers in organizations are structurally forsaken by corporate leadership (Section 3.1). The second subsection focuses on how workers are cajoled to take long shots for individual advancement rather than pursue collective improvement (Section 3.2). The results of these two subsections provided a basis for further discussion of what is obfuscated through the corporate (mis)leadership of workers under the capitalist ideology (Section 4), and a call for worker solidarity and revolutionary action (Section 5). The structural foundation of worker subjugation is presented first.

3.1. Structurally Forsaken

Corporate workers are structurally forsaken. Organizationally, no echelon, department, or individual exists to support workers or bolster their economic interests. Rather, capitalists and their organizational functionaries create structures and departments that defend the institution, perpetuate its interests over those of its workers, and isolate workers from each other while simultaneously limiting worker knowledge of operations, their relative standing, or their class interest. Whereas organizational elites are unified in precluding the formation of the class consciousness that would make the subjugation of employees contestable, if not abolished, the way this is enacted organizationally varies. Examining how each individual, or even how each department and echelon, contributes to worker subjugation is intractable. However, it is possible to sketch the contours of how key individual, echelon, and departmental leadership mislead workers. Focusing on executives, managers, human resources, and colleagues provides one with sufficient insight to understand the underlying dynamic of oppression perpetuated under capitalist ideology. These elements are focused upon because they also hold the most direct revolutionary potential. In short, these are the elements of organizational reality that simultaneously exhibit well aspects of institutional subjugation and are also the ones that offer emancipatory potential.

Executives within organizations are individuals who hold positions of significant authority (González-Ricoy, 2022; Zhao et al., 2024) and who oversee the organization’s strategic direction (Coulson-Thomas, 2021; Renz et al., 2019). These individuals typically possess positional power, granting them access to privileged information (Jaggi, 2021; Vukovic, 2019). Executives are often appointed by the corporation’s board of directors (Bainbridge, 2019; Mace, 2019) and include the C-suite roles such as the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, and Chief Financial Officer. Two components mentioned in this definition of executives are worthy of amplification. First, corporate executives are often appointed by the organization’s board of directors. As such, executives are both subservient and responsive to the interest of capital (Foster, 2019; Gantman, 2019). Consequently, any leadership taken by executives in the pursuit of this capital interest is necessarily misleading to workers, en masse, as the interests of capital and labor are diametrically opposed and antagonistic to each other (Sevcenko et al., 2022; Vidal, 2019). Second, as indicated, executives have privileged access to information. This creates a strategic imbalance between executives and workers that plays to the advantage of executives over workers. When workers are facing ambiguity, uncertainty, or complete nonsense, executives can simply allude to knowledge that the executives have access to and that they are currently unable to share, and workers are left with a heightened sense of uncertainty. Since a lack of information is associated with hedging (Bartram, 2019; Geyer-Klingeberg et al., 2019), this informational imbalance serves reactionary aims, sustaining the status quo. Executives mislead workers further through their selection of managers. Organizations tend to select managers who conform to institutional norms and desires (Bodemar, 2023; Jackson, 2022).

Since managers are selected by executives, they tend to identify up the hierarchy, and by extension, reflect and perpetuate the capitalist ideology. Managers interact directly with workers and, therefore, have the most consistent opportunity to mislead them. They may do this wittingly or not. Cynically, managers might “play the game”, and tell workers not what they think, but what they think will gain favor with executives and lead to further advancement within the organization. Less cynically, managers may adhere to the capitalist ideology, focusing on how hard work is rewarded within the organization and how it is possible to advance within the system. After all, a manager who advanced through the system is prima facia evidence that such advancement is not only theoretically possible but occurs in practice. At issue is not whether individuals can, and do, advance through the organizational hierarchy. Obviously, they can, and they do. The issue is that structurally, not everybody can or will advance. Managers mislead workers by focusing attention on individual advancement over collective improvement. In fact, focusing on collective improvement often produces punitive individual consequences from the organization (Braymen, 2024; Logan, 2021; Plata, 2025). The system is designed to channel attention and activity toward individual advancement and away from collective improvement. This is the basis of how workers are cajoled into taking long shots. This point is developed more fully subsequently. For now, it is sufficient to note that managers serve an essential organizational function. Rather than planning, organizing, and directing resources, managers indoctrinate workers (Kristianto, 2024; Lamb, 2021). Another way managers mislead workers is by directing them to seek assistance from representatives of the human resource department.

Human Resources is perhaps the organizational function that is most inherently contradictory. In one respect, the organization is perfectly transparent in its naming of this department. Organizationally, humans are resources. In economics, resources are often presented in the broad categories of land, labor, and capital, with labor being the human resource (Missemer & Pottier, 2025; Steeds, 2024). In this respect, the department is named appropriately, as it is the department that deals with the acquisition, maintenance, and deployment of organizational human resources applied to the aims of capitalist ideology. Conversely, the phrase human resources is ambiguous enough that workers might incorrectly assume that the department is a resource for the humans working within the organization (i.e., the workers). Such an assumption is bolstered when executives and managers encourage workers to seek out a member of the human resources department whenever issues arise. Naïve workers interpret this as an indication that those working within Human Resources are there to protect the individual, as if the department functioned as a quasi-union representative, rather than being the company stooge that exists to inform and protect those in power (i.e., executives and managers). The tragedy of the human resources department is that it holds emancipatory potential for workers. As Jackson (2025) explained, “there are elements within human resource management that provide a basis for authenticity, solidarity, and empowerment” (p. 332), and that the domain of human resource management might be the area “most conducive” for fostering “genuine solidarity” and for “embracing…a more inclusive and dynamic approach that values diversity and empowers organizational workers” (p. 345). Such potential is currently only latent as organizations use human resources to protect executives, managers, and institutions from workers. Institutional directions propagated by managers and the human resources department influence how workers interact with each other, constraining the free flow of information, collective understanding, and action.

History is made by the masses (Fanon, 2021; Maddox, 2022). If the situation of the workers, as a collective, is going to be improved, it is only going to happen through the raising of class consciousness by those in the working class, as a class with shared economic and political interests. As Fanon explained, “the more the people understand, the more vigilant they become, the more they realize in fact that everything depends on them and that their salvation lies in their solidarity” (p. 133). This requires taking on the establishment, which Newton (2009) defined as “the power structure, based on the economic infrastructure, propped up and reinforced by the media and all the secondary educational and cultural institutions” (p. 3). Bourgeois (i.e., capitalist) interest is to ensure an abundant supply of relatively inexpensive labor, focused on individual interest, and devoid of class consciousness. Such an interest is perpetuated based on an illusion of a “middle class” and the benefits of competition. Corporate policies enshrine aspects designed to isolate individuals from their colleagues. One example of this is the inability for workers to discuss pay openly (Anderson, 2017; Colella et al., 2007). If workers understood the variability in pay for the same work, they would demand the highest wage being paid for the work. Obscuring pay enables corporations to reduce labor expenses. This is not simply desirable for profits, but is essential as “capitalists cannot exist without wage-workers” (Engles, 2020: p. 3).

Another approach to isolate workers is to incentivize competition among them (Arman et al., 2021; Gough, 1992). Such competition rests firstly on the unemployment inherent in capitalism, or what Engles (2020) referred to as the “industrial reserve army”, which acts as “a regulator for keeping wages down to the lowest level that suits the interests of capital” (p. 56). By placing the focus on individual improvement, through promotion or pay increases, organizations distract from the common interest shared among all workers, which includes improvements to pay, benefits, security, and working conditions. Lastly, corporate policies often preclude individuals from taking the skills developed through work and competing against their current employer (Andrews & Garnero, 2025; Ross, 2024; Starr et al., 2021). The official policies of organizations are designed to isolate and constrain workers into a situation in which one can only advance through an organization, and when the desired ideology and behavior are adopted by the worker. Corporate leadership misleads individuals into a situation of dependence, conformity, and despair.

Executives, management, and those in human resources departments create situations in which workers become individuals rather than members of a collective in solidarity with each other. The structure of organizations and their policies are designed to perpetuate the capitalist ideology and preclude the effective formation of class consciousness. Through the process, workers are convinced that the only viable means of improvement is through individual advancement (e.g., promotion or salary increase). Collective action, designed to improve the situation of all workers, is foreclosed. Workers in such an environment are cajoled into taking long shots.

3.2. Cajoled to Take Long Shots

For capitalists, an ideal employment system could be defined as one that simultaneously and efficiently reduces operational costs while minimizing current and future threats to the capitalist system itself. Foucault (1980) described how the ideal form of surveillance is self-surveillance, which operates under “a form of power whose main instance is that of opinion” (p. 154), and under which “there is no need for arms, physical violence, material constraints. Just a gaze…a gaze which each individual under its weight will end by interiorizing to the point that he is his own overseer, each individual thus exercising this surveillance over, and against, himself” (p. 155). In much the same way, the ideal capitalist worker is the one who has fully internalized and conforms to the capitalist ideology, expecting that through their conformity and deference, they will be rewarded individually. Focus on individual advancement over collective improvement accomplishes both of these strategic aims of capitalism, as it allows organizations to reduce operating costs by giving pay premiums to only a few employees rather than improved employment compensation and conditions to all workers, while simultaneously increasing competition among all those who share a common, underlying, economic interest. In short, the employment dynamic operating under the capitalist ideology reduces costs and makes solidarity less likely to form. Such an outcome is a win for capitalists and a loss for workers. The essential component to the effective operation of the capitalist system is to cajole workers to take long shots for individual advancement over certain collective improvement resulting from solidarity.

Promotions and pay increases are used by capitalists to incentivize worker conformity to capitalist ideology (Janoski et al., 2021; Wesbury, 2009). Within the logic of capitalist ideology, if one wants to improve one’s situation, one should work harder, longer, more creatively, solve problems, and avoid displeasing those in authority (Arneson, 2014; Beeson, 2009). The overwhelming focus of capitalist ideology is on the individual (Abercrombie et al., 2015; Kennedy, 2017). This is the case, even when teams are the explicit focus of organizational performance (Bass, 2014; Brannick & Prince, 1997). Whereas teams exist organizationally, the trick in capitalism advancement is to utilize the team as a basis for individual aggrandizement without coming across as being either egotistical or opportunistic (Arthur et al., 2016; Hackman, 2002). In other words, self-interest is cloaked by superficial esprit de corps. Organizations may espouse the ethos that we are all in this together, but they cajole the formation of an individualism that requires one to look out for number one. As the famous Roman dictum states, Divide et impera (i.e., divide and rule). Colonialism is based on this tactic (Fanon, 2021; Legault, 2022; Posner et al., 2010). Fanon (2021) provided a revolutionary response noting that, “decolonization is always a violent event” (p. 7), and that “the more the people understand, the more vigilant they become, the more they realize in fact that everything depends on them and that their salvation lies in their solidarity, in recognizing their interests and identifying their enemies” (p. 133). Within capitalist ideology, competition is presented as a basis for improvement and efficiency (Bodislav & Georgescu, 2025; Fama, 2021). However, there is plenty of evidence showing that collaboration within organizations also produces improvements and efficiency (Hacardiaux et al., 2024; Stout & Keast, 2021). Why the privileging of competition over collaboration under capitalism? Because competition provides a basis to drive a wedge between workers and preclude the formation of the class consciousness necessary for solidarity and revolutionary action (Cengiz, 2021; Morgan & Pulignano, 2020). If workers are to liberate themselves from the subjugation of capitalism, they must stop taking the long shot of individual advancement and go all in on the collective improvement that only comes through solidarity and revolutionary action.

There are no easy paths to freedom (Jackson et al., 2024; Laurila & Carey, 2022). Moving from a focus on individual advancement to one of collective improvement will require an act of deconstruction (Derrida, 1978, 1997, 2000). The first step is to make the implicit explicit. One can only confront the capitalist ideology if one is aware of it. Next, one must interrogate its content and implications. Once the parameters of the capitalist ideology are understood, one is forced to decide. Pragmatically, one could understand the situation accurately and fully, and still decide to advance individually. One might not like it, but one could conclude that if you can’t beat them, join them. Alternatively, one might conclude that individual advancement offers little of value when it requires the continued subjugation of others. Much of capitalist society mitigates against forming an awareness that workers share a class interest (Hall, 2024; Kelsh & Hill, 2024). Various relationships and forms of social commitments carry with them a sense of obligation and duty, including family (Chapman et al., 2018; Probert, 2020), friendship (Brown, 2019; Oh et al., 2020), citizenship (Hur, 2020; Takagawa & Imai, 2024), military service (Fransen, 2019; Griffith, 2021), and one’s profession (Janzen & Phelan, 2019; Sinai-Glazer & Cohen-Achdut, 2025). The capitalist ideology promotes a sense of obligation to one’s employer (Roch et al., 2019; Zimmerman et al., 2019), but against forming a sense of revolutionary duty to one’s coworkers. Collective improvement requires workers to take their revolutionary duty seriously and sincerely. Otherwise, they will be cajoled to continue taking long shots for individual advancement over collective improvement.

Workers, under capitalism, are incentivized for precarious careers of alienation. Organizations, owned by capitalists and operated by managers accepting the capitalist ideology, cajole workers to take long shots on improving their situation through individual advancement. This goes on without much conscious thought, as it is accepted as the way things are. Jackson (2022) explained, “since management as an ideology obfuscates organizational power from the individual, one might be largely unaware of the extent to which one’s career outlook and goals have been shaped institutionally” (p. 19). This can be stopped by conscious action. Doing so requires revealing what has been so effectively obfuscated through the widespread acceptance of capitalist ideology and praxis. Revealing the obfuscated is essential for the liberation of the working class, and forms the locus of discussion for this study.

4. Discussion

Capitalists have stories about themselves that they like to tell to others, as stories are an effective means to propagate ideology (Buesink, 2023; Torabian, 2022). Common types among the capitalist stories are “rags-to-riches” or “Horatio Alger” stories, in which people from humble beginnings advance to positions of economic security, prestige, and power through hard work. Modern versions of that narrative can be seen in movies like The Founder (Hancock, 2016), The Greatest Showman (Gracey, 2017), and The Pursuit of Happyness (Muccino, 2006). Another common, pro-capitalist tale is focused on the individual inventor who creates a product of great economic value. Versions of that story type can be seen in movies like Joy (Russell, 2015), The Social Network (Fincher, 2010), and Pirates of Silicon Valley (Burke, 1999). Through these stories, and the many like them, capitalists tell the tales they want those in society to accept; hard work, industriousness, and creativity are rewarded socially and economically. The trick, if one might call it that, is that this is (only) sometimes the case. In other words, the story is presented as if its lesson were generally true and universal, rather than being specifically accurate and unique. What is obfuscated by these pro-capitalist stories is that while the desired outcome is possible, it is far from probable. In the case of inventions, it is more often the case that powerful capitalist organizations attempt to either appropriate one’s work or prevent that work from getting to market. Versions of this can be seen in movies like Tucker: The Man and His Dream (Coppola, 1988), Flash of Genius (Abraham, 2008), and The Current War (Gomez-Rejon, 2017). Whereas stories critical of capitalism exist, they are not the norm. Further, even when those stories are presented, they are typically done so with greater historical distance from the time of occurrence, suggesting that what occurred is something that happened in the past, but it isn’t how things operate today. These critical stories show the power of capitalists and reveal the core of what has been obfuscated. As Jackson (2022) explained, under capitalism, “management as an ideology obfuscates much of the structure and consequence of organizational power” (p. 85). This is consequential, as perceptions of power have been found to be correlated with positive sentiments towards one’s organization (Abou Elnaga & Imran, 2014; Jackson et al., 2022). Capitalist ideology obfuscates the power of the masses by focusing on individuals as the primary unit of merit and relevance.

Focusing on the individual obfuscates the collective. This is by design. As discussed, the capitalist ideology offers a chance for individual advancement. This ideology, like ideology in general, “is not so much what one thinks; it is what one accepts without thinking” (Jackson & Heath, 2024: p. 933). Whereas individual advancement is open to anybody, capitalism offers collective improvement only begrudgingly and temporarily. There are economic reasons for this. First, improving the situation for all workers would simply cost more, resulting in reduced profits (Adler, 2019; Freudenberg, 2021). Second, improving the situation for all would reduce competition among workers. Competition among workers acts as an incentive for workers to work harder (Bracha & Fershtman, 2018; Green et al., 2022), longer (Noonan, 2024; Skidelsky, 2019), and for less money (Anderson & Dudo, 2023; Bulut, 2023) than they would be willing to do otherwise. Lastly, focusing on individual advancement and obfuscating collective improvement mitigates against the formation of class consciousness and solidarity among workers (Hanappi & Hanappi-Egger, 2021; Smit, 2019). Each aspect of this dynamic benefits capitalists to the detriment of workers as a collective. Fetishizing the individual, under the capitalist ideology, places excessive and undue importance on its role and contribution. As previously indicated, the masses make history (Fanon, 2021; Maddox, 2022). This is obfuscated by the focus on individuals under capitalist ideology. When acknowledged indirectly by capitalists, the power of the working masses is co-opted by focusing on acceptable forms of collaborative engagement at work.

Examples of acceptable, collaborative approaches among executives, managers, and workers exist within capitalism. Included among these tactics and theories are participative management (Crane, 1976; Smit et al., 2023), high-involvement work systems (Boxall et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2024), servant leadership (DeConinck et al., 2018; Muzira & Muzira, 2020), holacracy (Jack & Bayo, 2024; Kukreja, 2019), team-based organizations (Bernards, 2023; Tripathy, 2018), and agile management (Badakhshan et al., 2020; de Borba et al., 2019), to name just a few. While proponents of stakeholder capitalism and co-determination models argue that these frameworks offer more inclusive and equitable approaches to corporate governance (Hayden & Bodie, 2021; Samans & Nelson, 2022), such views are considered insufficient because they often remain constrained within the overarching capitalist ideology that prioritizes profit over genuine worker empowerment. In fact, such approaches may superficially address power imbalances by incorporating stakeholder interests, yet they frequently fail to dismantle the entrenched structural and ideological barriers that perpetuate worker subjugation. As such, collaborative approaches do not fundamentally alter the capitalist system’s inherent antagonism between capital and labor, nor do they foster revolutionary solidarity.

Whereas each of these concepts is unique, they share a common trait. In terms of its basic operation, each approach directs the application of the collective power of the masses, through participation, toward the accomplishment of desired corporate ends while preventing the formation of radicalized class consciousness and antagonistic, revolutionary solidarity focused on collective improvements for workers. As the generation and adoption of these approaches betrays, capitalists accept collaborative work focused on increasing profitability. Especially if such illusions of collaborative influence make the formation of actual revolutionary solidarity less likely. All talk of collaboration among executives, managers, and workers obfuscates the basic fact that the interests of capitalists and workers are inherently and irreconcilably antagonistic in the long run (Dean et al., 2019; Tunderman, 2021). To work together is to work for the advancement of capital interests over that of labor and to ultimately further one’s own subjugation. Collective action is needed among workers, but it must be founded on class consciousness for it to be liberatory.

Collective action, based on a sense of solidarity formed through class consciousness, when liberated from the capitalist ideology, can improve the economic and existential situation of workers. Such struggles have won victories for labor that are widely taken for granted today. At the federal level, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established by law an end, or at least a limitation, of child labor, the standardized 8-hour work day/40-hour workweek, and the creation of a federally mandated minimum wage (Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, 2024). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a-2000h-6, 2023). The establishment of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 1970 provided for the enforcement of safety standards designed to protect workers and reduce workplace injuries and death (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678, 2004). More recently, the Family and Medical Leave Act was passed in 1993, guaranteeing eligible workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for medical or family-related reasons (Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, 2020). These victories for labor show what is possible when solidarity among workers is achieved, and its power is directed toward collective improvement. However, recent policy reversals to anti-discrimination (Sherman, 2025) and neglect in adjusting minimum wage for inflation (Hickey & Cid-Martinez, 2025) show that capitalists will work to undermine these advancements whenever and however they can.

The individual looms large in the stories of capitalism and the core of capitalist ideology. Whereas individual improvements are open to anybody, they are impossible for everyone. Obfuscated by the capitalist ideology is the inherent antagonism between the interests of capitalists and those of workers. The focus on individuals is designed to distract workers from understanding this antagonism and realizing that the masses make history, not the individual. When liberated from the constraints imposed by capitalist ideology, when class consciousness is formed within the working class, economic advancement is possible for all. First-level managers are in a unique position to hasten or hinder this advancement. Jackson (2022) noted that, “of all the aspects obfuscated by management as an ideology, perhaps the most consequential existentially is the alienation experienced by managers” (p. 34). Harnessing and directing the power of these alienated, organizational managers holds potential for the formation of worker solidarity and revolutionary action.

5. Conclusion: Worker Solidarity & Revolutionary Action

Reform is a built-in feature maintaining the status quo. Capitalism is elastic and capable of redefining itself and its relations with labor to maintain its dominance as the unquestioned and accepted ideology of American society. Wages, benefits, and protections of workers will continue to ebb and flow, as needed, to ensure the perpetuation of capitalism and the exploitation of workers. The battle line between reform and revolution is clear and longstanding (Coccia, 2019; Luxemburg, 2024; Tufekci, 2020). The erosion of long-accepted labor protections illustrates the plasticity of capitalism, and its ability to take away what it once conceded. This can be seen in terms of the recent decision to set back the overtime exemption salary threshold under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Honigman, 2024), reductions in telework flexibility and return-to-work demands (Allen et al., 2025; Magliozzi, 2025), and the lack of productivity-based compensation of workers (Levin-Waldman, 2025; Ngai & Sevinc, 2025). Capitalism will never be reformed for the long-term benefit of workers. Only short-term gains are possible. Despite wishes to the contrary, the choice is, and has always been, between various degrees of capitalist subjugation and revolution. This is the crux of the class division in society.

Corporate leaders, individually and collectively, who perpetuate the capitalist ideology are ultimately doing what they are paid to do. It is an essential aspect of their job. It is how they rewarded. It is how they advance. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which corporate leaders could, or would, do otherwise. Rational, self-interest is a cornerstone of the capitalist ideology (Lynch & Kalaitzake, 2020; Murtaza, 2011; Werhane, 2019). Any theory contradicting this axiom is folly. The issue isn’t primarily that corporate leaders mislead workers. Of course they do. The issue is how corporate leaders mislead workers. The corporate misleadership of workers is structural and ideological. These elements combine, in various forms, to preclude the formation of class consciousness and solidarity among workers. Until the structural and ideological barriers are overcome, workers will continue to experience subjugation.

What can be done now? If managers were the true leaders of workers they could be an effective part of a revolutionary vanguard party (Lenin, 2013) and function as a driving force for revolutionary change rather than reactionary enforcers of capitalist ideology. This could be the first structural element to change. As currently practiced, executives select managers. If workers nominated managers from among their own ranks, managers could represent the will of the workers in corporate discussions (Jackson, 2022; Levin, 2006). A Worker Advocacy department should be created within organizations as an adjunct to the Human Resources department. Worker Advocacy could assist workers in navigating the complex web of policies and laws to ensure that their rights are respected and that they are not being coerced or manipulated by corporate elites. These structural changes would become more meaningful when integrated with a deconstruction of the capitalist ideology and its replacement with a worker ideology. Employee benefits and structural organizational changes will be transitory unless the underlying ideological basis for worker subjugation is dismantled. This requires revolution. The revolution is qualitatively more than simply increasing economic benefits. The revolution is not about improving well-being, though of course that is desired. Worker revolution is about redefining its relationship to power. Under the capitalist ideology, workers are subordinated to profits. Under a worker ideology, workers oversee the organizational decisions that affect their work and well-being. Considerations of profit, while not immaterial, are not the only, or even the dominant, consideration.

Worker solidarity is a necessary precondition for revolutionary action (Matthaei, 2020; Youngdahl, 2009). However, there are persistent barriers in the United States to forming the class consciousness essential for worker solidarity (DiMaggio, 2015; Domhoff, 2018). When considering the asymmetry between reactionary and revolutionary forces it is easy to despair. Such desperation is an important part of the capitalist ideology. Whenever it seems hopeless, one should recall the simple fact that most of society is working class (Beech & Guy, 2021; Zweig, 2011). It is an impressive sleight of hand when a minority effectively convinces the majority that the masses are powerless to change things. Even though bourgeois democracy favors the capitalist class, it can accommodate the effective demands of those in the working class (Milner, 2021; Page & Gilens, 2020). Economic revolution is possible democratically. Only two things are required: solidarity and action.

In terms of enhancing the underlying economic conditions under capitalism, improvement is open to anybody but not everyone. Hard work does occasionally pay off for individuals who “make it”. But there are plenty of people who work hard, do quality work, and experience little more than degradation and subjugation. Not because they did anything wrong; simply because they were not as lucky as the person who made it. The gains to be won under the capitalist ideology are individual and idiosyncratic. Solidarity requires a concern for the collective. Society, and all who inhabit it, matters. Corporate leaders mislead workers insofar as they conflate individual advancement with collective improvement. These two things are not the same. Our society is rotting from the inside, not from any lack of individual opportunity, but from an absence of social solidarity. Work is the nexus of this phenomenon. If workers are unable to mobilize against and transcend their subjugation at work, there is little hope for our society. The price for incentivizing conformity with, if not adoption of, the capitalist ideology is economically cheap and existentially costly. Corporations can buy and sell individuals with ease. They do it every day, and many participate willingly because they are unable to envision a feasible alternative. The rationale for revolutionary action is clear. It is time for workers to cease being misled.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1]	Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., & Turner, B. S. (2015). Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism (pp. 1-211). Routledge. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ACU/detail.action?docID=1770588
[2]	Abou Elnaga, A., & Imran, A. (2014). The Impact of Employee Empowerment on Job Satisfaction Theoretical Study. American Journal of Research Communication, 2, 13-26.
[3]	Abraham, M. (2008). Flash of Genius [Film]. Universal Pictures.
[4]	Adler, P. S. (2019). The 99 Percent Economy: How Democratic Socialism Can Overcome the Crises of Capitalism. Oxford University Press.
[5]	Ahmed, S., & Simha, A. (2023). Autocratic Leadership and Abuse. In D. C. Poff, & A. C. Michalos (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics (pp. 159-161). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22767-8
[6]	Allen, T. D., Lezcano, A., & Schoffel, M. (2025). Presidential Memorandum on Return to In-Person Work: Implications for the Federal Workforce. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url= https://osf.io/6zkpg_v1/download/%3Fformat%3Dpdf&ved=2ahUKEwji7MvFw7SOAxXdD1kFHQDOLxgQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1_Rs_KVFICwBIRC9a0Jc9q
[7]	Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2011). Critical Management Studies. In SAGE Library in Business and Management (pp. 1-4). SAGE Publications. https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/773bf8ce-7822-4329-9f74-1a6abe75491f
[8]	Anderson, E. (2017). Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about It). Princeton University Press.
[9]	Anderson, J., & Dudo, A. (2023). A View from the Trenches: Interviews with Journalists about Reporting Science News. Science Communication, 45, 39-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221149156
[10]	Andrews, D., & Garnero, A. (2025). Five Facts on Non-Compete and Related Clauses in OECD Countries.
[11]	Arman, R., Gillberg, N., & Norbäck, M. (2021). Alone at Work: Isolation, Competition and Co-Dependency in Flexibilised Retail. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 42, 1254-1281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831x19861669
[12]	Arneson, S. (2014). What Your Boss Really Wants from You: 15 Insights to Improve Your Relationship. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
[13]	Arshad, U., Ullah, O., & Malik, U. (2021). Bureaucratic Leadership Style and Teachers’ Professionalism: A Case Study of Public Sector Universities. Global Regional Review, 6, 211-222. https://doi.org/10.31703/grr.2021(vi-i).23
[14]	Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Richardson, J. (2016). An Intelligent Career: Taking Ownership of Your Work and Your Life. Oxford University Press.
[15]	Atan, J. B., & Mahmood, N. H. N. (2019). The Role of Transformational Leadership Style in Enhancing Employees’ Competency for Organization Performance. Management Science Letters, 9, 2191-2200. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.7.033
[16]	Badakhshan, P., Conboy, K., Grisold, T., & vom Brocke, J. (2020). Agile Business Process Management: A Systematic Literature Review and an Integrated Framework. Business Process Management Journal, 26, 1505-1523. https://doi.org/10.1108/bpmj-12-2018-0347
[17]	Bainbridge, S. M. (2019). Rethinking the Board of Directors. The Business Lawyer, 74, 285-296. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27170972
[18]	Bartram, S. M. (2019). Corporate Hedging and Speculation with Derivatives. Journal of Corporate Finance, 57, 9-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.09.023
[19]	Bass, B. (2014). Individual Capability, Team Performance, and Team Productivity. In Hu-man Performance and Productivity (pp. 179-232). Psychology Press.
[20]	Beech, J., & Guy, M. W. (2021). Defining and Defying Common (Mis)understandings of the Working Class. In Working-Class Rhetorics (pp. 1-11). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004501508_001
[21]	Beeson, J. (2009). Why You Didn’t Get That Promotion. Harvard Business Review, 87, 101-105.
[22]	Beigi, M., Callahan, J., & Michaelson, C. (2019). A Critical Plot Twist: Changing Characters and Foreshadowing the Future of Organizational Storytelling. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21, 447-465. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12203
[23]	Benmira, S., & Agboola, M. (2021). Evolution of Leadership Theory. BMJ Leader, 5, 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2020-000296
[24]	Bergh, R., Davis, G. K., Hudson, S. T. J., & Sidanius, J. (2020). Social Dominance Theory and Power Comparison. In Social Comparison, Judgment, and Behavior (pp. 575-597). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190629113.003.0020
[25]	Bernards, B. (2023). Do Visionary and Servant Leaders Reduce Cognitive Uncertainty of Professionals? A Study of Team-Based Settings in Public Organizations. Public Management Review, 25, 1059-1081. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2005326
[26]	Bodemar, A. (2023). The Balancing Act of Conformity: Aspiring Leaders’ Response to Managerial Pressure. Sport in Society, 26, 1095-1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2022.2115363
[27]	Bodislav, D. A., & Georgescu, R. I. (2025). Consumerism and Capitalism: Dynamic Evolution, Economic Benefits, and Ethical Challenges. Theoretical & Applied Economics, 32, 251-266.
[28]	Boxall, P., Huo, M., Macky, K., & Winterton, J. (2019). Chapter 1. High-Involvement Work Processes and Systems: A Review of Theory, Distribution, Outcomes, and Tensions. In M. R. Buckley, A. R. Wheeler, J. E. Baur, & J. R. B. Halbesleben (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (pp. 1-52). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0742-730120190000037002
[29]	Bracha, A., & Fershtman, C. (2018). Working Hard or Working Smart? http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.275740
[30]	Brannick, M. T., & Prince, C. (1997). An Overview of Team Performance Measurement. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. W. Prince (Eds.), Team Performance Assessment and Measurement (pp. 15-28). Psychology Press.
[31]	Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. Monthly Review, 26, Article No. 1. https://doi.org/10.14452/mr-026-03-1974-07_1
[32]	Braymen, S. D. (2024). Starbucks Workers United and the Future of American Labor Activism. https://digitalcommons.spu.edu/honorsprojects/224
[33]	Briker, R., Walter, F., & Cole, M. S. (2020). Hurry Up! The Role of Supervisors’ Time Urgency and Self‐Perceived Status for Autocratic Leadership and Subordinates’ Well‐Being. Personnel Psychology, 74, 55-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12400
[34]	Brown, R. J. (2019). The Encounter and Obligations. In R. J. Brown (Ed.), Political Encounters (pp. 147-179). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17340-1_6
[35]	Buesink, J. J. (2023). Storytelling, Myth, and the Dreams Therein: A Critical Analysis of the Intertextuality of Christianity, Capitalism, and Americanism. https://hdl.handle.net/10315/41630
[36]	Bulut, E. (2023). The Fantasy of Do What You Love and Ludic Authoritarianism in the Videogame Industry. Television & New Media, 24, 851-869. https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764231156377
[37]	Burke, M. (1999). Pirates of Silicon Valley [Film]. Haft Entertainment.
[38]	Caillier, J. G. (2020). Testing the Influence of Autocratic Leadership, Democratic Leadership, and Public Service Motivation on Citizen Ratings of an Agency Head’s Performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 43, 918-941. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1730919
[39]	Cengiz, F. (2021). The Conflict between Market Competition and Worker Solidarity: Moving from Consumer to a Citizen Welfare Standard in Competition Law. Legal Studies, 41, 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2020.31
[40]	Chapman, A., Ganong, L., Coleman, M., Ko, K., & Kang, Y. (2018). What’s in a Word? Naming Obligations. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 3276-3297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x18777843
[41]	Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000a-2000h-6 (2023). https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations
[42]	Coccia, M. (2019). Theories of Revolution. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance (pp. 1-7). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3707-1
[43]	Coker, D. C. (2024). Learning to Lead: Debunking Strategic Leadership Myths and Misconceptions. In Leadership and Politics: New Perspectives in Business, Government and Society (pp. 215-240). Springer.
[44]	Colella, A., Paetzold, R. L., Zardkoohi, A., & Wesson, M. J. (2007). Exposing Pay Secrecy. Academy of Management Review, 32, 55-71. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23463701
[45]	Coppola, F. F. (1988). Tucker: The Man and His Dream [Film]. American Zoetrope.
[46]	Coulson-Thomas, C. (2021). Responsible Business Strategy and Corporate Leadership. Effective Executive, 24, 14-38.
[47]	Crane, D. P. (1976). The Case for Participative Management. Business Horizons, 19, 15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(76)90075-6
[48]	Dawaye, E. O. (2025). Delegative Leadership Strategies and Quality Education Service Delivery in Tertiary Institutions in Bayelsa State. Journal of Contemporary Education Research. https://doi.org/10.70382/hujcer.v7i8.024
[49]	de Borba, J. C. R., Trabasso, L. G., & Pessôa, M. V. P. (2019). Agile Management in Product Development. Research-Technology Management, 62, 63-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2019.1638488
[50]	Dean, J., Medak, T., & Jandrić, P. (2019). Embrace the Antagonism, Build the Party! The New Communist Horizon in and against Communicative Capitalism. Postdigital Science and Education, 1, 218-235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0006-7
[51]	Debord, G. (2014). The Society of the Spectacle (K. Knabb, Trans.). Bureau of Public Secrets (1967).
[52]	DeConinck, J. B., Moss, H. K., & Deconinck, M. B. (2018). The Relationship between Servant Leadership, Perceived Organizational Support, Performance, and Turnover among Business to Business Salespeople. Global Journal of Management and Marketing, 2, 38-52.
[53]	Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and Difference (A. Bass, Trans.). The University of Chicago Press.
[54]	Derrida, J. (1997). Of Grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). The Johns Hopkins University Press.
[55]	Derrida, J. (2000). Limited Inc. Northwestern University Press.
[56]	Devies, B., Pacheco, D. R., Haynes, L. A., Drummond, M. B., & Estrella‐Padilla, D. (2025). Celebrity as Catalyst: Connecting Leadership Development to Pop Culture. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2025, 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20650
[57]	DiMaggio, A. R. (2015). Class sub-Conscious: Hegemony, False Consciousness, and the Development of Political and Economic Policy Attitudes. Critical Sociology, 41, 493-516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920514540185
[58]	Domhoff, G. W. (2018). Who Rules America? In D. Grusky (Ed.), The Inequality Reader (pp. 297-302). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429494468-12
[59]	Dong, B. (2023). A Systematic Review of the Transactional Leadership Literature and Future Outlook. Academic Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 2, 21-25. https://doi.org/10.54097/ajmss.v2i3.7972
[60]	Empson, L., Langley, A., & Sergi, V. (2022). When Everyone and No One Is a Leader: Constructing Individual Leadership Identities While Sustaining an Organizational Narrative of Collective Leadership. Organization Studies, 44, 201-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406221135225
[61]	Engles, F. (2020). Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. The Leftist Public Domain Project.
[62]	Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 (2024). https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa
[63]	Fama, E. F. (2021). Contract Costs, Stakeholder Capitalism, and ESG. European Financial Management, 27, 189-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/eufm.12297
[64]	Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (2020). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim%40title29/chapter28&edition=prelim
[65]	Fanon, F. (2021). The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press.
[66]	Farkas, Z. (2023). Review and Critique of the Main Conceptions of Social Position, Status, or Situation. SN Social Sciences, 3, Article No. 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00623-9
[67]	Fincher, D. (Director) (2010). The Social Network [Film]. Columbia Pictures.
[68]	Fitzgerald, T. (2020). Leadership, Leaders, and Leading: Myths, Metaphors, and Myopias. In F. English (Ed.), The Palgrave Handbook of Educational Leadership and Management Discourse (pp. 1-12). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39666-4_9-1
[69]	Forster, N., Cebis, M., Majteles, S., Mathur, A., Morgan, R., Preuss, J. et al. (1999). The Role of Story-Telling in Organizational Leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20, 11-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739910251134
[70]	Foster, J. (2019). Absolute Capitalism. Monthly Review, 71, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.14452/mr-071-01-2019-05_1
[71]	Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972-1977. Pantheon Books.
[72]	Fransen, M. (2019). Selling Military Service during Wartime: U.S. Army Recruitment Advertising and Enlistment Motivation during the War against Terror. Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies, 2, 178-192. https://doi.org/10.31374/sjms.12
[73]	Freudenberg, N. (2021). At What Cost: Modern Capitalism and the Future of Health. Oxford University Press.
[74]	Fuchs, C. (2021). What Is Critical Theory? In C. Fuchs (Ed.), Foundations of Critical Theory: Media, Communication and Society Volume Two (pp. 17-51). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003199182-2
[75]	Galindo-Silva, H. (2020). Ethnic Groups’ Access to State Power and Group Size. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.08064
[76]	Gantman, E. R. (2019). Capitalism, Social Privilege and Managerial Ideologies. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351162081
[77]	Geyer-Klingeberg, J., Hang, M., & Rathgeber, A. W. (2019). What Drives Financial Hedging? A Meta-Regression Analysis of Corporate Hedging Determinants. International Review of Financial Analysis, 61, 203-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2018.11.006
[78]	Gilabert, P. (2019). Exploitation, Solidarity, and Dignity. Journal of Social Philosophy, 50, 465-494. https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12315
[79]	Gomez-Rejon, A. (Director) (2017). The Current War [Film]. BGI Supplies.
[80]	González‐Ricoy, I. (2022). Little Republics: Authority and the Political Nature of the Firm. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 50, 90-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12205
[81]	Gough, J. (1992). Workers’ Competition, Class Relations, and Space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 10, 265-286. https://doi.org/10.1068/d100265
[82]	Gracey, M. (Director) (2017). The Greatest Showman [Film]. Twentieth Century Fox.
[83]	Green, F., Felstead, A., Gallie, D., & Henseke, G. (2022). Working Still Harder. ILR Review, 75, 458-487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793920977850
[84]	Grey, C., & Willmott, H. (2005). Critical Management Studies. A Reader. https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/books/mono/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.4324/9781315796086&type=googlepdf
[85]	Griffith, J. (2021). War and Commitment to Military Service: Deployment and Combat Experiences Associated with Retention among Army National Guard Soldiers. Armed Forces & Society, 48, 735-759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x211017281
[86]	Hacardiaux, T., Tancrez, J., Defryn, C., & Verdonck, L. (2024). The Impact of Product Characteristics and Innovativeness on the Benefits of Collaboration. International Transactions in Operational Research, 31, 370-395. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13158
[87]	Hackman, J. R. (2002). Why Teams Don’t Work. In R. S. Tindale, et al. (Eds.), Theory and Research on Small Groups (pp. 245-267). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47144-2_12
[88]	Hai, T. N., & Van, Q. N. (2021). Servant Leadership Styles: A Theoretical Approach. Emerging Science Journal, 5, 245-256. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-2021-01273
[89]	Hall, S. (2024). Culture, the Media and the “Ideological Effect”. In K. Nash (Ed.), New Critical Writings in Political Sociology (pp. 341-374). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003572923-19
[90]	Hambrick, D. C., & Wowak, A. J. (2021). Strategic Leadership. In I. M. Duhaime, et al. (Eds.), Strategic Management: State of the Field and Its Future (pp. 337-354). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190090883.003.0019
[91]	Hanappi, H., & Hanappi-Egger, E. (2021). Social Identity and Class Consciousness. Forum for Social Economics, 50, 124-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/07360932.2018.1447495
[92]	Hancock, J. L. (2016). The Founder [Film]. The Weinstein Company.
[93]	Haugaard, M. (2022). Foucault and Power: A Critique and Retheorization. Critical Review, 34, 341-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2022.2133803
[94]	Hayden, G. M., & Bodie, M. T. (2021). Codetermination in Theory and Practice. Florida Law Review, 73, 321.
[95]	Hickey, S. M., & Cid-Martinez, I. (2025). The Federal Minimum Wage Is Officially a Poverty Wage in 2025. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/blog/the-federal-minimum-wage-is-officially-a-poverty-wage-in-2025/
[96]	Hilton, S. K., Arkorful, H., & Martins, A. (2021). Democratic Leadership and Organizational Performance: The Moderating Effect of Contingent Reward. Management Research Review, 44, 1042-1058. https://doi.org/10.1108/mrr-04-2020-0237
[97]	Hofmann, D. C. (2023). Charismatic Leadership. In D. C. Poff, & A. C. Michalos (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics (pp. 326-329). Springer International Publishing.
[98]	Honigman (2024). Court Strikes down DOL Rule Set to Increase the Salary Threshold for Many FLSA Exempt Employees. https://www.honigman.com/alert-2736
[99]	Hur, A. (2020). Citizen Duty and the Ethical Power of Communities: Mixed-Method Evidence from East Asia. British Journal of Political Science, 50, 1047-1065. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123418000066
[100]	Jack, M. A., & Bayo, P. L. (2024). Holacracy and Organizational Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Case Studies Across Different Business Models. African Journal of Management and Business Research, 17, 249-262. https://doi.org/10.62154/ajmbr.2024.017.010522
[101]	Jackson, R. (2022). Management in Quandary: A Critique of Organizational Power. Ross Jackson.
[102]	Jackson, R. A. (2025). Management Is [Fill in the Blank]: Making Sense of an Ideological Praxis through Textual Analysis. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 15, 315-361. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2025.152016
[103]	Jackson, R. A., & Heath, B. L. (2024). Ideology & Revolution in the Society of the Spectacle. Open Journal of Philosophy, 14, 904-940. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpp.2024.144061
[104]	Jackson, R. A., Slover, E. M., & Heath, B. L. (2022). Perceptions of Power and Organizational Sentiment: Analysis of One-Word Descriptions. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 12, 130-136. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijssh.2022.12.3.1079
[105]	Jackson, R., Heath, J., & Heath, B. (2024). Academic Freedom and Society: Intellectual Critique or Violent Revolution? AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom, 15, 1-8. https://www.aaup.org/JAF15/academic-freedom-and-society-intellectual-critique-or-violent-revolution
[106]	Jaggi, B. (2021). Corporate Governance: Structure and Consequences. In C.-F. Lee, & A. C. Lee (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Finance (pp. 1-35). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73443-5_52-1
[107]	Janoski, T., Lepadatu, D., & Signoretti, A. (2021). Contested Views of Lean Production from the Social Sciences Perspective. In T. Janoski, & D. Lepadatu (Eds.), The Cambridge International Handbook of Lean Production (pp. 124-149). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333870.006
[108]	Janzen, M. D., & Phelan, A. M. (2019). “Tugging at Our Sleeves”: Understanding Experiences of Obligation in Teaching. Teaching Education, 30, 16-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2017.1420157
[109]	Jarnagin, C., & Slocum, J. W. (2007). Creating Corporate Cultures through Mythopoetic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 36, 288-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.04.004
[110]	Karlsen, J. T., & Berg, M. E. (2020). Coaching Leadership Style: A Learning Process. International Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 13, 356-368. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijkl.2020.111143
[111]	Karwan, D., Hariri, H., & Ridwan, R. (2021). Visionary Leadership: What, Why, and How. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Progressive Education, ICOPE 2020 (p. 431). European Alliance for Innovation. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.16-10-2020.2305217
[112]	Kelsh, D., & Hill, D. (2024). The Culturalization of Class and the Occluding of Class Consciousness: The Knowledge Industry in/of Education. In D. Hill (Ed.), Class, Race and Education under Neoliberal Capitalism (pp. 54-94). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003476405-3
[113]	Kennedy, P. (2017). Individualization and the Cultures of Capitalism. In P. Kennedy (Ed.), Vampire Capitalism: Fractured Societies and Alternative Futures (pp. 169-201). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55266-2_6
[114]	Khassawneh, O., & Elrehail, H. (2022). The Effect of Participative Leadership Style on Employees’ Performance: The Contingent Role of Institutional Theory. Administrative Sciences, 12, Article No. 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040195
[115]	Kincheloe, J. L., & Mclaren, P. (2011). Rethinking Critical Theory and Qualitative Research. In K. Hayes, et al. (Eds.), Key Works in Critical Pedagogy (pp. 285-326). SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-397-6_23
[116]	Kotamena, F., Senjaya, P., & Prasetya, A. B. (2020). A Literature Review: Is Transformational Leadership Elitist and Antidemocratic? International Journal of Social, Policy and Law, 1, 36-43. https://doi.org/10.8888/ijospl.v1i1.15
[117]	Kothari, V. B. (2010). Leadership Myths. In V. B. Kothari (Ed.), Executive Greed: Examining Business Failures that Contributed to the Economic Crisis (pp. 41-49). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230109650_4
[118]	Kristianto, B. R. D. (2024). Deconstruction of Hegemonic Resistance in the Documentary American Factory. Jurnal Spektrum Komunikasi, 12, 135-144. https://doi.org/10.37826/spektrum.v12i1.706
[119]	Kukreja, J. (2019). Holacracy: The Next Generation Leadership in a VUCA World. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 3, 37-47.
[120]	Ladkin, D. (2020). What Donald Trump’s Response to COVID-19 Teaches Us: It’s Time for Our Romance with Leaders to End. Leadership, 16, 273-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715020929134
[121]	Lamb, P. T. (2021). Lab Rats: How Silicon Valley Made Work Miserable for the Rest of US. The Learning Organization, 28, 505-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/tlo-07-2021-272
[122]	Laurila, K., & Carey, K. C. (2022). Rethinking Freedom: A Framework for the Implementation of Ethical Space in the Academy. Educational Studies, 58, 200-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2022.2051027
[123]	Learmonth, M., & Morrell, K. (2021). “Leadership” as a Project: Neoliberalism and the Proliferation of “Leaders”. Organization Theory, 2, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211036708
[124]	Legault, G. (2022). From (Re)ordering to Reconciliation: Early Settler Colonial Divide and Conquer Policies in Canada. Journal of Indigenous Social Development, 11, 44-66.
[125]	Lenin, V. I. (2013). What Is to Be Done? Martino Publishing.
[126]	Lesmana, D., Rosadi, B., Hermana, D., Liu, R., & Winarno, A. (2022). Analyzing the Effect of Bureaucratic Leadership on Public Service Motivation and Job Performance. Journal of Local Government Issues, 5, 114-127. https://doi.org/10.22219/logos.v5i2.20904
[127]	Levin, H. M. (2006). Worker Democracy and Worker Productivity. Social Justice Research, 19, 109-121.
[128]	Levin-Waldman, O. M. (2025). Wage Stagnation and Inequality in the United States: How Public Policy Often Made Things Worse and What Can Be Done to Pursue More Broadly Shared Prosperity. In Fashioning Prosperous, Sustainable and Humane Societies (pp. 36-56). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035340262.00011
[129]	Lipset, S. M. (2019). Why No Socialism in the United States? In S. Bialer, & S. Sluzar (Eds.), Radicalism in the Contemporary Age (Volume 1, pp. 31-150). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429303692-2
[130]	Logan, J. (2021). Crushing Unions, by Any Means Necessary: How Amazon’s Blistering Anti-Union Campaign Won in Bessemer, Alabama. New Labor Forum, 30, 38-45. https://doi.org/10.1177/10957960211035082
[131]	Luxemburg, R. (2024). Reform or Revolution. Pathfinder.
[132]	Lynch, K., & Kalaitzake, M. (2020). Affective and Calculative Solidarity: The Impact of Individualism and Neoliberal Capitalism. European Journal of Social Theory, 23, 238-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431018786379
[133]	Mace, M. L. (2019). The President and the Board of Directors. In Corporate Governance (pp. 39-52). Gower.
[134]	Machokoto, W. (2019). The Relationship between Charismatic Leadership and Affective Commitment: A Systematic Review. Journal of International Business and Management, 2, 1-11. https://repository.uwl.ac.uk/id/eprint/9012
[135]	Maddox, N. (2022). Listening to Colonialism and Hearing Liberation. From the European South, 11, 86-92.
[136]	Magliozzi, P. (2025). Employee Adaptation in the Return-to-Office Era within Financial Institutions. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 90, 27-54. https://doi.org/10.1108/samamj-05-2024-0016
[137]	Marcuse, H. (2020). Philosophy and Critical Theory. In S. E. Bronner, & D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Critical Theory and Society: A Reader (pp. 58-74). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003059509-7
[138]	Matthaei, J. (2020). Thinking beyond Capitalism: Social Movements, Revolution, and the Solidarity Economy. In A Research Agenda for Critical Political Economy (pp. 209-224). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789903072.00019
[139]	Milner, H. V. (2021). Is Global Capitalism Compatible with Democracy? Inequality, Insecurity, and Interdependence. International Studies Quarterly, 65, 1097-1110. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqab056
[140]	Missemer, A., & Pottier, A. (2025). Revisiting Land, Labor and Capital in Neoclassical Economics. Land Economics. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.101.4.021225-0009
[141]	Morgan, G., & Pulignano, V. (2020). Solidarity at Work: Concepts, Levels and Challenges. Work, Employment and Society, 34, 18-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019866626
[142]	Muccino, G. (2006). The Pursuit of Happyness [Film]. Columbia Pictures.
[143]	Murtaza, N. (2011). Pursuing Self-Interest or Self-Actualization? From Capitalism to a Steady-State, Wisdom Economy. Ecological Economics, 70, 577-584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.10.012
[144]	Muzira, D. R., & Muzira, R. (2020). The Concept of Servant Leadership in Business Management. East African Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 1, 24-32. https://doi.org/10.46606/eajess2020v01i01.0003
[145]	Newton, H. P. (2009). Revolutionary Suicide. Penguin Books.
[146]	Ngai, L. R., & Sevinc, O. (2025). A Multisector Perspective on Wage Stagnation. Review of Economic Dynamics, 56, Article ID: 101269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.red.2024.101269
[147]	Nguyen, M., Pontes, N., Malik, A., Gupta, J., & Gugnani, R. (2024). Impact of High Involvement Work Systems in Shaping Power, Knowledge Sharing, Rewards and Knowledge Perception of Employees. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28, 1771-1792. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-04-2023-0345
[148]	Noonan, R. (2024). Working Harder and for Longer. In Capitalism, Health and Wellbeing (pp. 85-96). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83797-897-720241010
[149]	Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678 (2004). https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/completeoshact
[150]	Oh, J., Chopik, W. J., & Nuttall, A. K. (2020). The Effects of Obligation on Relationships and Well-Being over Time in Middle Adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 44, 479-489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025420911089
[151]	Page, B. I., & Gilens, M. (2020). Democracy in America? What Has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do about It. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226729947.001.0001
[152]	Phillips, M. J. (2023). Towards a Social Constructionist, Criticalist, Foucauldian-Informed Qualitative Research Approach: Opportunities and Challenges. SN Social Sciences, 3, Article No. 175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00774-9
[153]	Plata, S. (2025). Corporate America & Unions.
[154]	Posner, E. A., Spier, K. E., & Vermeule, A. (2010). Divide and Conquer. Journal of Legal Analysis, 2, 417-471. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/2.2.417
[155]	Probert, R. (2020). The Use of History in Obligation and Commitment in Family Law. Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, 22, 88-98. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrls/jlaa008
[156]	Rehbein, B. (2018). Critical Theory and Social Inequality. Tempo Social, 30, 49-65. https://doi.org/10.11606/0103-2070.ts.2018.145113
[157]	Renault, E. (2020). Critical Theory, Social Critique and Knowledge. Critical Horizons, 21, 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2020.1790750
[158]	Renz, D., Roza, L., & Simons, F. (2019). Challenges in Corporate Foundation Governance. In L. Roza, et al. (Eds.), Handbook on Corporate Foundations: Corporate and Civil Society Perspectives (pp. 17-37). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25759-0_2
[159]	Roch, S. G., Shannon, C. E., Martin, J. J., Swiderski, D., Agosta, J. P., & Shanock, L. R. (2019). Role of Employee Felt Obligation and Endorsement of the Just World Hypothesis: A Social Exchange Theory Investigation in an Organizational Justice Context. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49, 213-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12578
[160]	Rosenbach, W. E., Taylor, R. L., & Youndt, M. A. (2018). Contemporary Issues in Leadership. Routledge.
[161]	Ross, I. (2024). Non-Compete Clauses in Employment Contracts: The Case for Regulatory Response. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 35, 806-830. https://doi.org/10.1017/elr.2024.40
[162]	Russell, D. O. (2015). Joy [Film]. Fox 2000 Pictures.
[163]	Saar, M. (2010). Power and Critique. Journal of Power, 3, 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17540291003630320
[164]	Saeed, M., & Mughal, Y. H. (2019). Role of Transactional Leadership Style upon Performance: Mediating Role of Culture. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 13, 47-57.
[165]	Samans, R., & Nelson, J. (2022). Stakeholder Capitalism’s Promising Resurgence. In R. Samans, & J. Nelson (Eds.), Sustainable Enterprise Value Creation: Implementing Stakeholder Capitalism through Full ESG Integration (pp. 3-34). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-93560-3_1
[166]	Sangren, P. S. (1995). “Power” against Ideology: A Critique of Foucaultian Usage. Cultural Anthropology, 10, 3-40. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.1995.10.1.02a00010
[167]	Sevcenko, V., Wu, L., Kacperczyk, A., & Ethiraj, S. (2022). Surplus Division between Labor and Capital: A Review and Research Agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 16, 334-390. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2019.0130
[168]	Sherman, M. (2025). Supreme Court Makes It Easier to Claim “Reverse Discrimination” in Employment, in a Case from Ohio. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-discrimination-lawsuit-ohio-205f07a2d47d7a46cfc96a5fefdf9269
[169]	Sinai-Glazer, H., & Cohen-Achdut, M. (2025). “It Was against the Rules but Had to Be Done”: Exploring Social Workers’ Professional Obligations. Social Work, 70, 167-175. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swaf011
[170]	Skidelsky, R. (2019). How to Achieve Shorter Working Hours. Progressive Economy Forum.
[171]	Smit, D. (2019). Class Consciousness in Late-Twentieth-Century America. In D. Smit (Ed.), Power and Class in Political Fiction: Elite Theory and the Post-War Washington Novel (pp. 17-46). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26769-8_2
[172]	Smit, I., Bam, L., & Zincume, P. N. (2023). Participative Management for Team Effectiveness and Innovation. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 34, 28-41. https://doi.org/10.7166/34-1-2767
[173]	Starr, E. P., Prescott, J. J., & Bishara, N. D. (2021). Noncompete Agreements in the US Labor Force. The Journal of Law and Economics, 64, 53-84.
[174]	Steeds, L. (2024). Land as Capital: A Genealogy through the Birth and Development of Economic Thought. In F. Anderl (Ed.), Epistemologies of Land (pp. 41-58). Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group.
[175]	Stone, A. G., & Patterson, K. (2023). The History of Leadership Focus. In S. K. Dhiman, & G. E. Roberts (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Servant Leadership (pp. 689-715). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01323-2_38
[176]	Stout, M., & Keast, R. (2021). Collaboration: What Does It Really Mean? In Handbook of Collaborative Public Management (pp. 17-35). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789901917.00012
[177]	Takagawa, S., & Imai, Y. (2024). Diverse Motivations in Citizen Science. In Y. Suzuki-Ohno (Ed.), Community Science in Ecology: Case Studies of Public Participation in Ecological Research in Japan (pp. 101-103). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0304-3_7
[178]	Torabian, J. E. (2022). Education and Culture: The Instrumentalisation. In J. E. Torabian (Ed.), Wealth, Values, Culture & Education: Reviving the Essentials for Equality & Sustainability (pp. 91-135). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92893-3_4
[179]	Tripathy, M. (2018). Building Quality Teamwork to Achieve Excellence in Business Organizations. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 5, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v5i3.662
[180]	Tufekci, B. (2020). Reform or Revolution: The AES as Socialist Strategy. In B. Tufekci (Ed.), The Socialist Ideas of the British Left’s Alternative Economic Strategy (pp. 39-64). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34998-1_3
[181]	Tunderman, S. (2021). Equivalence and Antagonism in Marx’s Theory of Value. Rethinking Marxism, 33, 134-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2020.1847022
[182]	Utomo, W. A., Udin, U., & Haryono, S. (2022). Visionary Leadership and Employee Quality in the Public Service Sector. International Journal of Applied Economics, Finance and Accounting, 12, 31-37. https://doi.org/10.33094/ijaefa.v12i2.542
[183]	Vidal, M. (2019). Work and Exploitation in Capitalism. In M. Vidal, et al. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx (p. 241). Oxford University Press.
[184]	Vukovic, V. (2019). When Politicians Collude with Firms: The Impact of Elite Networks on Inequality. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:46fdef6d-8537-4d12-a6a6-5f40201fab8d/files/md39cc3a1f44e04a03b9e00a7abdcfea7
[185]	Wang, Q., Hou, H., & Li, Z. (2022). Participative Leadership: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article ID: 924357. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.924357
[186]	Werhane, P. H. (2019). The Role of Self-Interest in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. In D. J. Bevan, R. W. Wolfe, & P. H. Werhane (Eds.), Systems Thinking and Moral Imagination: Rethinking Business Ethics with Patricia Werhane (pp. 271-280). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89797-4_15
[187]	Wesbury, B. S. (2009). It’s Not as Bad as You Think: Why Capitalism Trumps Fear and the Economy Will Thrive. John Wiley & Sons.
[188]	Yanovska, V., Baldzhy, M., & Fayvishenko, D. (2019). Coaching as a Leadership Style and a Business Education Model. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social, Economic, and Academic Leadership (ICSEAL 2019) (pp. 210-214). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icseal-19.2019.34
[189]	Youngdahl, J. (2009). Solidarity First. New Labor Forum, 18, 31-37.
[190]	Zargar, P., Sousan, A., & Farmanesh, P. (2019). Does Trust in Leader Mediate the Servant Leadership Style—Job Satisfaction Relationship? Management Science Letters, 9, 2253-2268. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.7.028
[191]	Zhao, X., Huang, X., Liu, F., & Pan, L. (2024). Executive Power Discrepancy and Corporate ESG Greenwashing. International Review of Financial Analysis, 96, Article ID: 103533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2024.103533
[192]	Zimmerman, R. D., Swider, B. W., & Boswell, W. R. (2019). Synthesizing Content Models of Employee Turnover. Human Resource Management, 58, 99-114. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21938
[193]	Žižek, S. (2006). The Parallax View. The MIT Press.
[194]	Zulfikar, V. A., & Rahman, R. S. (2019). Effect of Delegative Leadership on Achievement Motivation and Continuous Commitment. Kontigensi: Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen, 7, 44-53. https://doi.org/10.56457/jimk.v7i2.67
[195]	Zweig, M. (2011). The Working Class Majority: America’s Best Kept Secret. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801464317