Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:56
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
But, Is It Ethics? Common Misconceptions in
Business Ethics Education
Alma Acevedo
To cite this article: Alma Acevedo (2013) But, Is It Ethics? Common Misconceptions in Business Ethics Education, Journal of Education for Business, 88:2, 63-69, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.639407
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.639407
Published online: 04 Dec 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 644
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.639407
But, Is It Ethics? Common Misconceptions
in Business Ethics Education
Alma Acevedo
University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico
As a human endeavor and profession, management must be built on sound ethical underpin-nings. Accordingly, introductory management courses customarily introduce business ethics and corporate social responsibility in order to develop the students’ ethical awareness and reasoning. Yet, some common misconceptions regarding the discipline are also present in these introductions to the topic, as evidenced by a review of a sample of popular management textbooks. Their discussion, with recommendations, aims to improve the teaching and learning of ethics in management and, hence, managerial problem solving and decision making.
Keywords: business education, business ethics, business schools, ethical relativism, social responsibility
Recent infamous cases and a global financial crisis partly blamed on corporate greed (Gross, 2009; Tett, 2009) have made the discussion of applied ethics ever more pressing. They suggest that the very survival and success of busi-ness depend on its ethical footing. Deceptive marketing, for instance, has been shown to deeply cut shareholder value (Tipton, Bharadwaj, & Robertson, 2009). Stakeholders de-mand transparent and honest corporate governance and ac-countability. Companies are likely to “do well by doing good” (Falck & Heblich, 2007).
Just as business uses societal resources in order to op-erate and profit, it has a duty to fairly reciprocate in goods and services that foster human development (Collins, 1994; Donaldson, 1982; Khurana & Nohria, 2008). The business-society contract imposes ethical obligations. Business has been fittingly described as a community of members who have rights and whose purpose is, ultimately, the flourish-ing of society (Camenisch, 1981; Handy, 2002; Hartman, 2006). Its managers are “agents ofsociety’sinterest in thriv-ing economic enterprises” (Khurana & Nohria, p. 76, italics in original). This reality grounds management’s claims to be a profession, and business’ very legitimacy (Khurana, 2007; Pfeffer & Fong, 2004; Trank & Rynes, 2003).
Correspondence should be addressed to Alma Acevedo, University of Puerto Rico, School of Business Administration, Department of Manage-ment, P. O. Box 23332, University Station, San Juan 00931–3332, Puerto Rico. E-mail: aacgerencia@gmail.com
ETHICS EDUCATION: A BUSINESS SCHOOL IMPERATIVE
Business schools have been repeatedly called to provide eth-ical leadership (Alsop, 2007; Etzioni, 2002; Hosmer, 1988). The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International’s accreditation standards (2011) highlight this concern. A key component of a business school’s mission is the education of professionals who will lead organizations, make decisions, and implement them using ethically sound principles and practices. Accordingly, one of the objectives of the management course, often one of the first in the bachelor of business administration (BBA) and master of business ad-ministration (MBA) curricula, is to develop students’ moral awareness and ethical problem solving and decision making competencies.
The coverage of ethics in management textbooks was found to be “extensive” more than ten years ago (Hoaas & Wilcox, 1995). This remains true today. All of the introduc-tory management textbooks reviewed (Certo & Certo, 2009; Daft, 2010; Hellriegel, Jackson, & Slocum, 2007; Robbins & Coulter; Rue & Byars, 2009; Schermerhorn, 2008) dedicate a chapter to business ethics and corporate social respon-sibility (CSR). They often cover the factors that influence managerial ethical decisions, the institutionalization of ethics (e.g., ethical structures, ethics training, codes of ethics), sus-tainable development, and ethics in the international con-text. More specialized issues such as social investments, social audits, and social entrepreneurship are also becom-ing standard features (Certo & Certo; Robbins & Coulter;
64 A. ACEVEDO
Rue & Byars; Schermerhorn). All of the textbooks re-viewed have been in print for at least nine editions; their au-thors have published extensively in management and related areas.
BUT, IS IT ETHICS?
Is this introductory coverage accurate and sufficient? Are its theoretical underpinnings sound? College students often either employ legal, moral, or psychological criteria to eth-ically evaluate situations, or claim that to judge is wrong since everyone is entitled to their opinions and all of these are equally tenable (Dolhenty, 2009; Jennings, 1999; Pojman, 2005). Their ethical reasoning skills need development. Does that introductory material provide students adequate grounds on which to ethically solve problems and reach the best de-cisions? Does it provide a proper reference to management professors, some of whom may lack formal training in moral philosophy (Hosmer, 1988; Klein, 1998)?
The business ethics and CSR chapters reviewed, though commendable, reveal a series of misconceptions, some of which mirror students’ and society’s. The concepts ethics, morality, andlaw; ethical relativismandmoral relativism; andbusiness ethicsandCSRare frequently confused. The normative framework tends to be inadequate, and ethical conclusions are left unstated or unjustified. In this article I ex-amine each of these misconceptions with the goal of improv-ing the teachimprov-ing and learnimprov-ing of ethics in management and, hence, managerial problem solving and decision making.
Confusion Between the ConceptsEthics,
Morality, andLaw
In the reviewed textbooks, similar to in everyday language, ethics is frequently defined as morality (e.g., “the code of moral principles and values that governs the behaviors of a person or group with respect to what is right or wrong” [Daft, 2010, p. 130]). Formally speaking, however, ethics is not morality, but the philosophical study of morality (De-George, 2009; Frankena, 1973; Velasquez, 2009). As such, ethics systematizes, questions, modifies, and justifies—when justifiable—morality. It may even reject social and individual moral standards regarding acceptable and desirable values and behaviors if found to be objectionable or groundless. For example, although bribery may be accepted in some coun-tries, it is ethically questionable.
As a set of social or individual standards regarding good character and right conduct, morality is influenced by cus-toms and culture and is, therefore, relative or contingent (Ve-lasquez, 2009). It may change according to time and society. Unlike ethics, morality is generally characterized by a set of negative, specific rules, some of which may be inconsistent, questionable, or even fall outside the realm of ethics. Arguing that lying is wrong while justifying tax cheating or expense
padding is an instance of moral incongruity. Ethics, on the other hand, identifies, develops, and justifies basic universal and objective principles regarding what the moral agent ought to be and do (Kreeft, 1990). Because they are universal, they apply to every moral agent regardless of society, group, or generation. Because they are objective, they are independent of personal tastes, fashion, or other purely subjective condi-tions. Since college age students are already steeped in social morality, teaching morality instead of ethics involves real op-portunity costs for them and society. It may even degenerate into a moralism that only caricatures philosophical ethics.
Students are also misled when ethics is conceived to be equivalent to law, as when a legal test is listed among the standards from which to choose in order to make the right decision (Certo & Certo, 2009, p. 73). Although important in a management text, the extensive coverage of legal matters in the business ethics and CSR chapter (e.g., Rue & Byars, 2009) may be understood as implying that ethical and le-gal norms are equivalent. Even at an introductory level, and because of it, their distinction must be unequivocally estab-lished lest students conclude that legal behavior suffices for the ethical personal or organizational life. That ethics, sim-ilar to the law, has a normative nature does not mean that they are related in all aspects. Although law refers to rules of conduct, its realm and justification, as well as its methods and conclusions, are not the same as those of ethics. Legal behaviors are not necessarily ethical (e.g., legal but unethical lies) while some behaviors are illegal but ethically justified (e.g., some cases of civil disobedience). Behaviors that vio-late ethical criteria may, eventually, be codified into laws, as has happened with workplace race discrimination and sex-ual harassment in some countries. However, these practices are ethically wrong not because those laws were approved, nor only when and where they bind. They are ethically wrong because, among other reasons, they violate human dignity.
In addition, while the agent’s intentions for the legal act do not necessarily add to or detract from its lawfulness, they are important for the ethical act. Lawfully filing personal tax forms out of fear of a U.S. Internal Revenue Service audit does not detract from the act’s lawfulness, but is relevant for its ethical evaluation. Refraining from wrong behavior out of fear of its negative consequences places the motivation outside the agents and may call into question their ethical integrity. Should those negative consequences be few or un-likely, such agents may not behave correctly since their act does not stem from autonomously accepted ethical norms. Ultimately, in the ethical (good) life, rewards and punish-ments are, in reality, internal to the agent and do not depend on external administration or enforcement. Unlike ethical principles, laws are relative to society and generation, and are established by authoritative bodies that may amend or abolish them. Legal decisions are strongly influenced by precedents and written legal codes. Majority opinion or written rules do not determine the soundness of ethical conclusions.
Confusion Between the ConceptsEthical RelativismandMoral Relativism
Statements such as “discrimination against women and mi-norities was deemed unethical by our culture and subse-quently made illegal in 1964” (Hellriegel et al., 2007, p. 81) and “although this business practice [bribery] is unethical (and illegal) in the United States, it’s acceptable in Mexico” (Robbins & Coulter, 2009, p. 102) confuse ethical relativism with moral relativism. They imply that ethical principles are relative to cultural and time frames. The fact that bribery and discrimination have been accepted does not make them any less questionable from an ethical, human rights, standpoint. Likewise, some statements suggest that ethical principles and judgments are purely subjective, or contingent on personal opinion (e.g., “some would argue that the company is be-ing unethical due to its selfishness in this situation while others would argue that the company is being ethical be-cause it is acting in the best interests of stockholders” [Certo & Certo, 2009, p. 73]). That moral conclusions may differ means neither that ethical principles and judgments merely state individual opinions, preferences, or feelings, nor that all are equally sound.
Moral relativism states that moral judgments differ, or may differ, throughout human history, among societies, among groups or individuals in the same society, or even within individuals’ lives. Experience shows this to be true, particularly with regard to controversial matters such as capi-tal punishment, euthanasia, and stem cell research. The state-ment “race discrimination has been accepted by some soci-eties” does not express an ethical judgment but, rather, an empirical observation.
Ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the norma-tive claim that there are no universal and objecnorma-tive eth-ical principles. Etheth-ical relativism—that etheth-ical principles are contingent and subjective because moral judgments are thus—is questionable (DeGeorge, 2009; Dolhenty, 2009; Kreeft, 1990, 1999; Pojman, 2005; Velasquez, 2009). There are sound reasons to repudiate race discrimination. That hu-man dignity ought to be respected is a norm that holds univer-sally. That it has been violated does not undermine its validity, but grounds the judgment that such a behavior is wrong. If ethical relativism were true, what would concepts such as good,bad,just, orunjustmean? Concluding, for instance, that bribery is unfair would be impossible, or meaningless, because there would be no criteria to support that judgment. Neither would there be criteria on which to evaluate ethical development or degeneration. Ethical relativism contradicts human reason and common experience.
Moreover, varying moral conclusions may be reached from the same universal and objective ethical principles (Dolhenty, 2009; Kreeft, 1990; Pojman, 2005) simply be-cause of different assessment of the consequences, different evidence, or definitions. For example, two managers may disagree on whether marketing genetically modified foods
is morally right, while appealing to the common good as the ethical principle. Their conclusions do not differ because ethical principles are relative, but because they have assessed differently the consequences that accrue from the practice or gathered conflicting data regarding its health effects.
Although thought to advance tolerance (e.g., Robbins & Coulter, 2009, p. 102), ethical relativism actually harbors in-tolerance and disorder. The absence of ethical criteria brings about confusion and hesitation, breeding grounds for in-transigence and dictatorship. The reluctance to emit ethical judgments is not tolerance, but indifference (Kreeft, 1999). Tolerating every behavior, regardless of its ethical standing, contradicts the very meaning of virtue. Acknowledging the diversity of human behavior does not necessarily imply their ethical approval or disapproval. Recognizing, for instance, that cheating and fraud occur does not imply that these be-haviors are ethically right. Tolerating these practices does not represent virtue, but vice.
Confusion Between the TermsBusiness Ethics
andCorporate Social Responsibility
Seldom formally defined in the chapters reviewed, business ethics is the philosophical study of morality in the busi-ness environment (DeGeorge, 2009; Klein, 1998; Velasquez, 2009). As such, it rigorously examines the moral principles, practices, and problems of the firm at the systemic, organi-zational, group, and personal levels. The ethical evaluation of economic systems and of organizational strategies, poli-cies, systems, and actions, as well as of group and employee character and behaviors, are all part of the realm of business ethics.
CSR, on the other hand, has been variously defined (Ja-mali, 2008; Lockett, Moon, & Visser, 2006). In the textbook chapters surveyed, it is often defined as an obligation to serve the interests of both, business and society (Certo & Certo, 2009; Daft, 2010; Rue & Byars, 2009; Schermerhorn, 2008). It involves negative (e.g., not to harm) and positive duties (e.g., to contribute to the common good). Though less fre-quently, the term has also been defined as an intention beyond business’s “legal and economic obligations, to do the right things and act in ways that are good for society” (Robbins & Coulter, 2009, p. 93). An intention, however, does not necessarily imply compliance.
Defining CSR as an obligation raises a number of ques-tions: Which, specifically, are these obligations? Why are they so? What is the relative weight or importance of each and why? What is the relative weight or importance of the in-terests of each of the stakeholders—stockholders or owners, employees and unions, customers, suppliers, lenders, dis-tributors, competitors, government, community, and social interest groups—and why? What ought to be done whenever there is a conflict among those obligations and why? Stu-dents should be aware that a systematic ethical examination is required to rightly answer such questions.
66 A. ACEVEDO
CSR, therefore, is not synonymous with business ethics, but a part thereof. A corporation that behaves ethically acts socially responsibly, albeit not solely so. A corporation that is socially responsible is not necessarily ethical (e.g., one whose behavior stems only from a concern with profit, social accep-tance, the law, or the avoidance of social rebuke). Socially responsible practices do not replace ethical reasoning and commitment, but must be subject to ethical assessment. En-ron, for instance, was well known for its CSR practices such as corporate philanthropy, environmental leadership, and a CSR task force; it had a code of ethics and a triple-bottom-line report (Vogel, 2005). Nonetheless, it has become one of the most notorious textbook cases of ethical wrongdoing. The massive fraud at the company inflicted enormous and lasting human, social, and economic costs. Not surprisingly, some have argued that an emphasis on CSR may actually “distract attention” from more fundamental ethical questions and evaluation and that, consequently, it neither overrides nor substitutes business ethics (Crook, 2005).
Inadequate Normative Framework
Most of the textbook chapters studied provide a brief overview of normative ethics in the form of the traditional rule-based criteria of utilitarianism, moral rights, and justice (Certo & Certo, 2009; Daft, 2010; Hellriegel et al., 2007; Schermerhorn, 2008). In addition, some include individual-ism (Daft; Schermerhorn), which is often described as ego-ism or normative self-interest. Others use Nash’s (1981) 12-question framework or a variant thereof (Robbins & Coulter, 2009; Rue & Byars, 2009). Still another (Certo & Certo, pp. 72–73) lists a number of additional standards besides the rule-based ethical criteria: namely, the golden rule, the pro-fessional ethic, the legal test, and the “TV test,” which asks managers whether they would “feel comfortable explaining to a national TV audience” the reasons for their action. Certo and Certo added that “managers can feel confident that a po-tential action will be considered ethical by the general public if it is consistent with one or more” of those standards.
There are, however, some inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and significant omissions in the discussion of ethical criteria in the textbooks surveyed. For instance, the statement “many economists espouse the utilitarian approach, but it has re-ceived less support from the general public [...] utilitarian
ethics have been increasingly challenged and tempered by the moral rights and justice approaches” (Hellriegel et al., 2007, p. 93) is vague and misleading. What evidence backs those assertions? What relevance does public support have on an ethical theory’s soundness? From the same chapter:
As a guide to ethical behavior in organizations, the moral rights approach says more about what organizations should
avoiddoing—that is violating the moral rights of employees, customers, and members of society—than it does about what
todo. The justice approach provides more guidance in this regard. (Hellriegel et al., p. 96, italics in original)
Have positive rights been considered? Besides, is not jus-tice a moral right as well?
Even when accurate, such introductions to normative ethics lack the necessary assessment. The principles or stan-dards are mentioned but not evaluated, if only briefly. Placing ethics as a function of self-interest (individualism), the law (the legal test), or feeling (the TV test), on a par with social utility or universal moral rights, hints that the standards are equally sound and interchangeable. That this is not so may be learned from any reasonable introductory text in ethics (e.g., Frankena, 1973; Kreeft, 1990; MacIntyre, 1998; Po-jman, 2005) or business ethics (e.g., Beauchamp, Bowie, & Arnold, 2008; DeGeorge, 2009; Donaldson, Werhane, & Cording, 2007; Shaw & Barry, 2009; Velasquez, 2009). Stu-dents may skeptically wonder what is the standards’ practical relevance, as these are neither systematically applied to busi-ness cases in the chapter nor subsequently. Students should realize that some moral judgments are right, some are wrong, some better or worse, depending on the soundness of the eth-ical reasoning supporting them (Velasquez).
A related shortcoming is an inadequate or nonexistent definition of which kinds of problems are subject to ethi-cal analysis. The chapters reviewed often list several moral problems, instead of providing a conceptual framework that enables students to distinguish moral from nonmoral issues (i.e., problems that are subject to ethical evaluation from those that are not; Frankena, 1973). Nonmoral behavior (e.g., a person’s handwriting) has nothing to do with ethics or morality, while immoral behavior (e.g., fraud) violates moral standards. Unlike nonmoral issues, moral problems involve questions that pose significant consequences for the agent or for others. Moreover, their ethical evaluation presupposes that the agent has moral responsibility. That is, the agent is free to act and knows or can know the standards, and the nature and consequences of the action or practice for those affected. Agents are free to act insofar as they have options and can behave accordingly because, among other things, they have the relevant power, resources, control, and skills.
The confusion between a moral problem and a moral dilemma is also common. Although every moral dilemma poses a moral problem, not every moral problem is a moral dilemma (Hosmer, 1988). A dilemma is a problem that presents the decision maker with alternatives, neither of which is easy nor comfortable because of conflicting rights or duties that cannot all be fulfilled (Scruton, 1998, p. 125). The examples provided often do not fit that definition. Be-haviors such as accessing sexually explicit images with the company’s computer, sexual harassment, conflicts of interest, and promotion based on non–job-relevant criteria such as race or age (Schermerhorn, 2008, pp. 36–37) do not exemplify moral dilemmas. There are ample reasons to con-clude that all of them are ethically wrong. On the other hand, whether a company should operate in a country where sex discrimination is culturally, and even legally, accepted, may pose a moral dilemma, particularly if it is an emerging market
where foreign enterprise is likely to alleviate unemployment and poverty.
Finally, none of the chapters examined include virtue ethics as normative criterion in spite of the renewed interest in this framework, particularly after MacIntyre’s (2007) and Solomon’s (1993, 2003) influential work. Recent editions of some widely used business ethics textbooks have profitably integrated this framework (e.g., Beauchamp et al., 2008; De-George, 2009; Donaldson et al., 2007; Velasquez, 2009). Just before hearing the Federal District Judge’s 150-year sentence, Bernard Madoff apologetically “blamed his pride,” adding that he lived “in a tormented state now” (Henriques, 2009). His lawyer described him as a “deeply flawed indi-vidual,” and the judge decried his scheme as “extraordinarily evil.” These moral judgments pertain to the person’s charac-ter. It is not simply that Madoff behaved in ways that harmed many people, or that his intentions were questionable, or that he was about to suffer immense material, social, and personal losses. The ethical life is not merely an aggregate of acts with positive consequences or good intentions. It involves the totality of the person’s being, or character. Virtues are admirable character traits; in the ethical life, they represent attributes of moral excellence. An overview of virtue ethics and its importance to personal development and ethical lead-ership would enrich the introductory discussion to business ethics (Hartman, 2006; Moore, 2002, 2005; Solomon, 2003).
Reticence in Expressing Normative Judgments
Stating that “some would argue...while others” (Certo &
Certo, 2009, p. 73) may be understood by students as in-difference toward reaching moral conclusions, or as an en-dorsement of ethical relativism. Consistent with the previ-ous misconceptions, and probably partly arising from them, this unwillingness to advance ethical conclusions based on sound argument may reinforce the mistaken idea that these are merely opinions, and equally tenable. Moreover, it may reinforce the students’ hesitation or fear to pass ethical judg-ment on the moral issues in their personal and professional lives. Right decision making is modeled by boldly and confi-dently advancing well-grounded ethical conclusions regard-ing business cases and issues.
Clearly, an applied ethics chapter or lecture does not repre-sent indoctrination or preaching; no genuinely philosophical endeavor does. Coercively imposing standards differs from freely deliberating on the reasons why the standards ought to be accepted, modified, or rejected. Ethics does the latter. An ethical principle, in order to be so, is well justified and, there-fore, persuasive. Arbitrariness or coercion does not make the standard ethically mandatory; its sound justification does.
Budding managers must develop problem-solving skills that systematically integrate ethical reasoning in order to make better decisions, and to be able to confidently and cogently defend these. Students should exercise their ethical reasoning skills by systematically applying ethical principles
to business cases and issues, and everyday moral questions. They should also be encouraged to engage in sound ethical reflection and argument not as a dull and taxing drill, but as a stimulating and rewarding undertaking. Just as physical exercise is good for general well-being, the ethical reasoning and behavior muscle must be regularly exercised in order to achieve integral health. As is the case with all exercise, disci-pline and effort are required, but the benefits are well worth it.
BUSINESS ETHICS EDUCATION: OVERVIEW
Since almost every managerial decision has a moral dimen-sion, it is essential that ethical reasoning be integrated to problem solving and decision making. Formal education in ethics has been shown to enhance ethical awareness, judg-ment, and commitjudg-ment, particularly in young adults whose reasoning skills are in a state of flux (Duska, 1991; Glenn, 1992; James & Cohen, 2004; Piper, Gentile, & Parks, 1993; Rest, 1988; Stead & Miller, 1988; Williams & Dewett, 2005). Accordingly, even at an introductory level, that discussion must be accurate and systematic, lest students end up be-lieving that business ethics is just a decorative art, wish-ful thinking, or, worse, a self-serving, vague, or ambivalent undertaking. A business ethics education built on mistaken philosophical foundations “trivializes” the topic and “cheats students” (Klein, 1998, p. 567).
Although there are many good reasons to require a stan-dalone business ethics course in the BBA and MBA curric-ula (Acevedo, 2001), this is not always the case. As often the business student’s first look at this discipline, the introductory management course is an ideal arena in which to learn the im-portance of ethical leadership and management, and to start developing the proper problem-solving and decision-making frameworks in which ethical criteria and methods are neces-sary. Its business ethics and CSR component is probably the closest many business students will get to a foundation in the criteria, concepts, and methods of normative ethics. Other core courses, such as finance, accounting, marketing, and operations are commonly not expected to step in and fill any such void, given their already wide, and highly specialized, range of topics. Applications of ethics to cases in these fields often presuppose that the management course has reason-ably covered those foundations. In order for students to have an adequate ethical basis, management educators are urged to heed this article’s recommendations in their coverage of business ethics; namely:
• Accurately discuss fundamental concepts such as ethics and morality, moral problems and moral dilemmas, busi-ness ethics and corporate social responsibility;
• Accurately distinguish between ethics and law;
• Avoid statements that may imply that ethical principles are relative, or that ethical judgments or conclusions are simply opinions and, as such, are all equally reasonable;
68 A. ACEVEDO
• Discuss fundamental universal and objective ethical prin-ciples, and systematically apply them to business issues and cases; and
• Confidently formulate ethical judgments or conclusions based on sound ethical reasoning.
As Lewin (1951) famously stated, there is nothing more practical than a good theory. Why would we conscientiously discuss leadership and motivation theories if it were other-wise? Why, for instance, would leadership researchers demur about the lack of definitional clarity in the field? (Gini, 1997; Rost, 1993). Ethical theory deserves no less (Klein, 1998). Once a person is familiar with sound ethical reasoning prin-ciples and methods, any moral problem—whether personal, group, organizational, or systemic—may be tackled and the decision confidently and persuasively defended. That edu-cation is even more necessary in fragmented societies. Far from dismissing intuition, creativity, and emotion (Gaudine & Thorne, 2001; ten Bos & Willmott, 2001), orderly thinking based on proper principles and methods is more likely to ren-der them fruitful. Fuzzy, or plainly wrong, thinking regarding ethical matters may do a lot of harm, while systematic, right reasoning a lot of good to all or most of the parties involved. Ignoring the costs of ethically wrong behavior, and the ben-efits of what is ethically right, is hazardous to personal and organizational health. Would Enron et al. be textbook cases of ethical wrongdoing and ignoble corporate death had their decision makers applied sound ethical reasoning and acted accordingly? Were the resources used in rationalization, de-ception, and researching legal loopholes well invested?
Although right thinking is an essential aim of any university-based academic program, it would be unwarranted to claim that learning ethical reasoning skills will stop all morally questionable corporate conduct, or that lacking them will inevitably lead to immoral behavior. Moral courage, for one, is oftentimes required to act in accordance with the right decision. On the other hand, a virtuous person, a person of moral integrity, habitually recognizes and acts on the best al-ternative. Yet, these outstanding persons also need proper eth-ical reasoning skills to confidently and cogently justify and argue their decisions. Many a basically good person in a cor-rupt organizational setting has been rhetorically beaten when lacking sound reasoning and argumentation skills. Sound ar-guments may persuade recalcitrant wrongdoers to mend their ways.
Business schools have been asked to “rediscover” their academic roots as “university departments” (Pfeffer & Fong, 2004, pp. 1514–1515; Starkey, Hatchuel, & Tempest, 2004). They have been admonished for “propagating ideologically inspired amoral theories” that have “freed their students from any sense of moral responsibility” (Ghoshal, 2005, p. 76). In-accurate discussions of business ethics and CSR may prove to be even worse. A faulty set of tools may inadvertently bring to its possessor a sense of self-assurance and self-reliance that is ill-supported. Management has successfully borrowed
theories from psychology, sociology, and economics aiming to explain, influence, and predict organizational, group, and individual behavior. As a properly human endeavor, this is not enough; neither as a true profession. As both, manage-ment must be built on sound ethical underpinnings. Outside the proper normative ethical framework, explanation and pre-diction of human behavior are useful but sorely lacking. An-swering “How do they behave?” and “Will they likely behave so?” does not answer “Ought they to do so? Is it right?” Im-proving ethics education in management, along the lines rec-ommended in this essay, enables better answers to the latter.
REFERENCES
Acevedo, A. (2001). Of fallacies and curricula: A case of business ethics.
Teaching Business Ethics,5, 157–170.
Alsop, R. (2007, June 19). Talking B-school: Why teaching of ethics con-tinues to be lacking.Wall Street Journal,7.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2011). Eligibil-ity procedures and accreditation standards for business accreditation. Tampa, FL: Author.
Beauchamp, T. L., Bowie, N. E., & Arnold, D. G. (Eds.). (2008).Ethical theory and business(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Camenisch, P. R. (1981). Business ethics: On getting to the heart of the
matter.Business and Professional Ethics Journal,1, 59–69.
Certo, S. C., & Certo, S. T. (2009).Modern management: Concepts and skills(11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Collins, J. W. (1994). Is business ethics an oxymoron?Business Horizons,
37(5), 1–8.
Crook, C. (2005). The good company.The Economist,374(8410), 3–18. Daft, R. L. (2010).Management(9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western. DeGeorge, R. T. (2009).Business ethics(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Dolhenty, J. (2009). The myth of moral relativism.Documentation Service,
XXII(8), 7–12.
Donaldson, T. (1982).Corporations and morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Donaldson, T., Werhane, P. H., & Cording, M. (Eds.). (2007).Ethical issues in business: A philosophical approach(8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Duska, R. F. (1991). What’s the point of a business ethics course?Business Ethics Quarterly,1, 335–354.
Etzioni, A. (2002, August 4). When it comes to ethics, B-schools get an F.
The Washington Post,B4.
Falck, O., & Heblich, S. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: Doing well by doing good.Business Horizons,50, 247–254.
Frankena, W. K. (1973).Ethics(2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision-making in organizations.Journal of Business Ethics,31, 175–187.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good man-agement practices.Academy of Management Learning & Education,4, 75–91.
Gini, A. (1997). Moral leadership: An overview.Journal of Business Ethics,
16, 323–330.
Glenn, J. R. (1992). Can a business and society course affect the ethical judgment of future managers?Journal of Business Ethics,11, 217–223. Gross, D. (2009). Dumb money: How our greatest financial minds
bankrupted the nation. New York, NY: Free Press.
Handy, C. (2002). What’s a business for?Harvard Business Review,80(12), 49–55.
Hartman, E. M. (2006). Can we teach character? An Aristotelian answer.
Academy of Management Learning & Education,5, 68–81.
Hellriegel, D., Jackson, S. E., & Slocum, J. W. (2007). Managing: A competency-based approach(11th ed.). Fresno, CA: South-Western. Henriques, D. B. (2009, June 30). Madoff, apologizing, is given 150 years.
The New York Times, Al.
Hoaas, D. J., & Wilcox, D. C. (1995). The academic coverage of business ethics: Does economics measure up?American Journal of Economics and Sociology,54, 289–303.
Hosmer, L. T. (1988). Adding ethics to the business curriculum.Business Horizons,31(4), 9–15.
Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice.Journal of Business Ethics,
82, 213–231.
James, H. S. Jr., & Cohen, J. P. (2004). Does ethics training neutralize the incentives of the prisoner’s dilemma? Evidence from a classroom experiment.Journal of Business Ethics,51, 53–61.
Jennings, M. M. (1999). What’s happening in business schools?The Public Interest,137, 25–32.
Khurana, R. (2007).From higher aims to hired hands. Princeton, NJ: Prince-ton University Press.
Khurana, R., & Nohria, N. (2008). It’s time to make management a true profession.Harvard Business Review,86(10), 70–77.
Klein, E. R. (1998). The one necessary condition for a successful busi-ness ethics course: The teacher must be a philosopher.Business Ethics Quarterly,8, 561–574.
Kreeft, P. (1990).Making choices: Practical wisdom for everyday moral decisions. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Books.
Kreeft, P. (1999). A refutation of moral relativism. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius.
Lewin, K. (1951).Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper.
Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence.
Journal of Management Studies,43, 115–136.
MacIntyre, A. (1998).A short history of ethics(2nd ed.). South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntyre, A. (2007).After virtue: A study in moral theory(3rd ed.). South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Moore, G. (2002). On the implications of the practice-institution distinc-tion: MacIntyre and the application of modern virtue ethics to business.
Business Ethics Quarterly,12, 19–32.
Moore, G. (2005). Corporate character: Modern virtue ethics and the virtu-ous corporation.Business Ethics Quarterly,15, 659–685.
Nash, L. L. (1981). Ethics without the sermon.Harvard Business Review,
59(6), 78–90.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2004). The business school ‘business’: Some lessons from the US experience.Journal of Management Studies,41, 1501–1520.
Piper, T. R., Gentile, M. C., & Parks, S. D. (1993).Can ethics be taught?
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Pojman, L. P. (2005). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Rest, J. R. (1988). Can ethics be taught in professional schools? The psychological research. Ethics: Easier Said than Done, 1, 22– 26.
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2009).Management(10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rost, J. C. (1993).Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rue, L., & Byars, L. (2009).Management(13th ed.). Chicago, IL: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Schermerhorn, J. R. (2008).Management(9th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Scruton, R. (1998).An intelligent person’s guide to philosophy. New York,
NY: Penguin.
Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2009).Moral issues in business(11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Solomon, R. C. (1993).Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Solomon, R. C. (2003). Victims of circumstances? A defense of virtue ethics in business.Business Ethics Quarterly,13, 43–62.
Starkey, K., Hatchuel, A., & Tempest, S. (2004). Rethinking the business school.Journal of Management Studies,41, 1521–1531.
Stead, B. A., & Miller, J. J. (1988). Can social awareness be increased through business school curricula? Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 553–560.
Ten Bos, R., & Willmott, H. (2001). Towards a post-dualistic business ethics: Interweaving reason and emotion in working life.Journal of Management Studies,38, 769–793.
Tett, G. (2009).Fool’s gold: How the bold dream of a small tribe at J. P. Morgan was corrupted by Wall Street greed and unleashed a catastrophe. New York, NY: Free Press.
Tipton, M., Bharadwaj, S., & Robertson, D. (2009). Regulatory exposure of deceptive marketing and its impact on firm value.Journal of Marketing. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1431978
Trank, C. Q., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming professionalism in business education.Academy of Management Learning & Education,2, 189–205.
Velasquez, M. G. (2009).Business ethics(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Williams, S. D., & Dewett, T. (2005). Yes, you can teach business ethics: A review and research agenda.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,12, 109–120.
