In theory, the scope of the Councils is clearly extremely wide. Subjeas;
discussed have included wage systems, redundancy, factory closure and
night shifts, but in practice (as this list might indicate) the highest level
policy decisions do not come in the purview of the Council. At Glacier,
'top-policy making is the prerogative of the Board of Directors and Management. The directors authorise capital expenditure, decide dividends,
appoint the Managing Director, decide director's fees, confirm senior
appointments ••• To say nothing of deciding who will "take over" the
Company and so on'.1 In addition to the introduction of elected participatory bodies, the other side of the Glacier experiment is an attempt to
clarify and systematise the formal role definitions and relationships of
management and men. The pre-rgso emphasis on group participation in
decision making has shifted, in Kelly's review, to this other aspect.2 There
would seem to be something inherendy contradictory in this attempt both
to operate a system where employees can participate in all policy decisions, and one that sharpens and systematises (and enshrines in a company
language) the difference in authority between 'managers' and 'subordinates'.