When Organization Theory Met Business Ethics

When Organization Theory Met Business Ethics: Toward Further Symbioses
Pursey P. M. A. R. Heugens and Andreas Georg Scherer

ABSTRACT: Organization theory and business ethics are essentially the positive and normative sides of the very same coin, reflecting on how human cooperative activities are organized and how they ought to be organized respectively. It is therefore unfortunate thatdue to the relatively impermeable manmade boundaries segregating the corresponding scholarly communities into separate schools and departments, professional associations, and scientific journalsthe potential symbiosis between the two fields has not yet fully materialized. In this essay we make a modest attempt at establishing further connectivity by surveying the terrain covered by the two disciplines jointly, as if the boundaries between them did not matter. We commence by providing a concise overview of the organization theory discipline for interested non-specialists from the field of business ethics. Next, we proceed to point out four research themes commonly investigated by members of both communities, and also a variety of organization-theoretical perspectives on each. In the final part of this essay we explore what organization theory has to offer business ethics, and what the boundaries of that potential contribution are. We warn skeptical readers in advance that the spirit and tone of our essay is most definitely upbeat, as we are convinced that the potential for symbiosis between the two fields is vast and inspiring, even though it has only been unleashed partially and incidentally thus far.
INTRODUCTION RGANIZATION THEORY is that branch of the social sciences that studies the design and evolution of the social stmctures comprising modem complex organizations, as well as the adaptation of those stmctures to task environments and institutional or environmental contingencies (Thompson 1967; Woodward 1965). Its disciplinary roots range from economics, political science, and anthropology to (social) psychology and, especially, (organizational) sociology. Methodologically, the field draws on nearly every type of research design currently in use in the social sciences, varying from qualitative and interpretative ethnographic studies to quantitative and explanatory experimental work. In view of the wide scope and variety of the field we point out four salient properties of the organization theory discipline, which we will discuss further in this introduction. Each of these properties is associated with an objective, which we aim to realize in the four main sections of this paper. First, the discipline of organization theory itself is characterized by considerable plurality (Hassard 1993), plurivocity (Thachankary 1992), and possibly even incommensurability (Burrell and Morgan 1979; Scherer 1998). In an important sense, therefore, there is no such thing as organization theory: there is only a rather loosely connected body of theories on the structures and processes of organizing (cf, Weick
2010 Business Ethics Quarterly 20:4 (October 2010); ISSN 1052-150X pp. 643-672
644
BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY
1979). A first objective of this paper will therefore be to shed some new light on the diversity of insights and perspectives comprising the discipline. We commence by discussing three fundamental debates, which draw our attention to important fault lines in the organization theory discipline: (1) individualism versus collectivism, (2) realism versus constmctivism, and (3) instmmentalism versus institutionalism. Jointly these fault lines cut across the numerous research groups comprising the organization theory field, including organizational economists and ecologists, institutional and cultural theorists, and narrative and critical management scholars. We proceed to aggregate these fragmented groups into higher-order, semi-autonomous communities of organizational scholarship. The communities we identify, which center on the modem, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives on organizations, are commonly accepted and acknowledged in the discipline (Hatch 1997). A second property of the field of organization theory that we touch upon is the high level of connectivity between the domains of organization theory research and (macro) business ethics research. While organization theory and business ethics scholars (with notable exceptions) tend to be trained differently, attend different professional meetings, and publish in different joumals, this is primarily an unfortunate byproduct of disciplinary boundaries, and to a far lesser extent an outcrop of distinct conceptual and empirical domains. A second objective of this paper is therefore to identify the major themes that play a central role in both the organization theory and business ethics disciplines. A survey of both literatures unveils four common themes: (1) "values," (2) "society," (3) "power," and (4) "organizations." In each case we show how these themes are differentially interpreted by the three aforementioned communities of organizational scholarship. We expect that this will help business ethics scholars get a better grip on these concepts and identify new avenues for future study. A third aspect we highlight is that the organization theory discipline can be used to inform business ethics scholarship. A further objective of the present paper is therefore to identify both the realized and potential contributions of organizational scholarship to the business ethics discipline. Over the years, organization theorists have infused business ethics scholarship with both substantive insights as well as novel methodologies for studying (ethical themes in) organizations. Also, they have helped business ethicists to better understand the business-society interface and to come to grips with the many faces of power (Lukes 1974). Finally, they have offered many suggestions for making business ethics scholarship more adaptive and resilient and have delivered several conceptualizations for modeling social change. In short, we believe that business ethicists could benefit substantially from closer liaisons with organization theory scholars. It is by no means our intent, however, to suggest that organization theory is a kind of panacea that can address all the ailments and further all the ambitions of the business ethics field. As a matter of fact, we are both quite critical of the organization theory discipline, and we believe that it is something of an enigma that the field is so successful in spite of its many inadequacies (Heugens 2008). As a fourth objective for our paper we therefore propose to map the shortcomings of the organization theory discipline which limit its potential for informing business ethi-
WHEN ORGANIZATION THEORY MET BUSINESS ETHICS
645
cal scholarship. Six shortcomings in particular are salient: first, the neglect of the microfoundations of social actions and of human agency; second, the preoccupation with the diffusion of social innovations, rather than with their initiation; third, the more general retrospective character of organizational analysis; fourth, the ignoring of the influence of remarkable individuals, irrespective of whether they are mavericks or Maecenas, Bonapartes or Robespierres, on organization change processes; fifth, the indomitable centrifugal forces in the field, which cause perpetual paradigmatic proliferation and increasing incommensurability; and sixth, and, perhaps most pertinent to business ethics scholars, the normative vagueness that results from this level of plurality in the field. FUNDAMENTAL DEBATES AND COMMUNITIES OF SCHOLARSHIP Our first objective is to shed some new light on the truly amazing diversity of insights and perspectives comprising the organization theory discipline. We commence by discussing three of the most central debates in organization theory: (1) individualism versus collectivism, (2) realism versus constructivism, and (3) instrumentalism versus institutionalism. More specifically, we discuss how researchers' positions in these debates might affect their impact on theory and research in the domain of business ethics. Next, we proceed by showing how the fault lines produced by these debates have shaped the boundaries of three semi-autonomous communities of scholarship, which jointly comprise the organization theory family: the modem, symbolic, and post-modem communities (Hatch 1997). Our intention is to offer interested outsiders, such as business ethics scholars who have not been formally trained in organization theory, something of a conceptual roadmap through which they can explore this complex field. Fundamental Debates Individualism versus Collectivism A first debate that has divided the organization theory field into rivaling camps concems the question whether the basic properties of organizations should be seen as aggregates of the properties of individuals constituting the organization (Heugens, Kaptein, and van Oosterhout 2008), or as social facts that emerge from the interactions between these individuals, but which cannot be reduced to them (Pettit 1996). We will denote the first position as individualism, and the second as collectivism. According to individualists, who are inspired by thinkers like Jon Elster (1989), F. A. Hayek (1948), and Karl Popper (1945), all organizations ultimately act and decide through people. Seen through the individualist's lens, organizations are primarily a context in which normal human reactions to stimuli become aggravated or dampened due to the higher stakes and more extreme situations that collective organization produces. Essentially, however, the preferences, cognitive abilities, and biases of human decision makers are fixed, and only tend to be differentially magnified or suppressed across varying organizational contexts (Simon 1955). Perhaps the most concise summary of the individualist position is offered by Elster himself who claims that "The elementary unit of social life is the individual hu-
646
man action. To explain social institutions and social change is to show how they arise as the result of the actions and interaction of individuals" (Elster 1989: 13). The individualist position also casts its shadow onto the domain of business ethics. According to individualists, moral responsibilities first and foremost reside with individual human beings. In their view it may be economical or legally convenient to hold organizations accountable for misdeeds or wrongdoing because they represent many individuals simultaneously and can more easily incur large fines and penalties than most natural persons (Heugens, Kaptein, and van Oosterhout 2008), but tme moral responsibility can only reside with natural persons. Collectivists work in a sociological tradition that can be traced back at least to intellectuals like Durkheim (1982) and Tnnies (2004), perhaps even to Mandeville (1724) and Rousseau (1762). At the heart of the collectivist position are two postulates (Durkheim 1982): First, that the thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors of individuals are largely determined and conditioned by extemal constraints, which induce or coerce them to act in ways that are deemed socially appropriate. Second, even though these constraints themselves may well be the product of ongoing and interlocking interactions between individuals (Weick 1979), they cannot simply be reduced to individual action. Because these constraints (which Durkheim calls "social facts"; cf. Durkheim 1982) consist of mutually recognized and jointly constituted symbols, norms, and representations, they can only exist and be sustained in a realm that is decisively more encompassing than the individual consciousness, notably: social communities like organizations, organizational fields, or society (Pettit 1996). Collectivism is an interesting position for the business ethics field, because it draws our attention to the idea that corporations can collectively be held accountable for their actions. Goodpaster and Mathews (1982), for example, have proposed the principle of moral projection, whereby they take the processes by which we usually hold individuals accountable for their actions and project these onto corporations in their entirety. Goodpaster and Mathews show that because organizations can initiate actions collectively, can follow or deviate from social and legal norms, and can formulate judgments evaluating multiple courses of action (oftentimes through what they label as the "hand of management"), it is acceptable to speak of collective or corporate responsibilities or even a collective conscience. What the field of organization theory has to offer to business ethics in this regard is that it has produced theoretically more nuanced views of how collective actorhood is constituted (Heugens 2005), which business ethicists can use to bolster their claims conceming collective responsibilities. Realism versus Constructivism A second debate that has caused a fair degree of segmentation in the organization theory discipline deals with the question as to whether organizations represent an objectively knowable, mind-independent reality (Fairclough 2005; Reed 2001), or reference socially constructed phenomena in which any appearance of structure or order exists only in the minds of the decision makers "enacting" it (Weick 1979). We refer to the first position as realism, and the second as constructivism.
647
Realists operate on the assumption that there exists a reality that is independent from our interpretative schemes, mental frames, and linguistic practices. Many realists are disgruntled with the constructivist alternative to their position because it tends to overemphasize (a) processes of organizing at the expense of structure, and (b) symbolic aspects of organizational change processes at the expense of substantive consequences (Fairclough 2005). Realists claim that many pertinent research questions in organization theory can only be addressed by acknowledging the enabling and constraining effects of substantive organizational structures. These questions include the emergence of new organizational forms and practices, the hegemonic rise of certain forms and practices to the detriment of others, their diffusion across organizational and field boundaries, and their transformation into new mutants, hybrids, and variants (Courpasson 2001 ; Fairclough 2005; Reed 2001). With respect to the business ethics field, the realist position presents a particular challenge for postmodern business ethics (Bauman 1993) and its variants like feminist (Benhabib 1992) and ecological (Rolston 1975) ethics. What these loosely connected ethical positions have in common is that they have constructivist underpinnings, in that they set out to explore the narrative structures and social conventions underlying contested concepts like "gender roles" and "business responsibility." The realist challenge to such approaches encompasses that the discourse analytical tools of the postmodern trade may very well be capable of identifying, analyzing, and questioning morally sensitive situations, but may also fall short of addressing their real-world consequences. Realists therefore remind postmodern ethicists of the necessity to take into account social practices with predominantly material foundations, like legislation, monitoring, and policing. Leading constructivist scholars in organization theory include Mary Jo Hatch (1997), Hayagreeva Rao (1994), and (especially) Karl Weick (1979). Constructivists reject the claim that the social world has a settled meaning and character, and argue that our cognitive schemes, frames, and categories do critically influence the social world. The influence of such cognitive interpretation devices extends decisively beyond the realm of interpretation and "sensemaking" (Weick 1979). Through these interpretative structures people also enact the social world. In the words of Weick, "Your beliefs are cause maps that you impose on the world, after which you 'see' what you have already imposed." Of course, few social constructivists entirely deny the existence of the material world. They suggest, however, that the most important constitutive elements of organizations are those that are the "enacted" product of human interactions and socially shared beliefselements like legitimacy (Suchman 1995), identity (Pratt 2000), and status (Podolny 1993). The position of constructivism imposes numerous challenges for the business ethics discipline. For example, ethicists that approach morality from a distinctly individualist/rationalist position (e.g., Kantianists) have to come to grips with the idea that many moral yardsticks are not individually deduced but collectively devised. Furthermore, those seeking to ground morality in singular/eternal truths (such as most religious ethics) have to acknowledge that competing systems of morality can coexist, and that the specific system they themselves embrace is at least in part a product of the arbitrary historical and cultural context from which it originated. In contrast, constructivism is more
648
easily reconcilable with philosophies like cosmopolitanism (Crane, Matten, and Moon 2008) or republicanism (Scherer, Palazzo, and Baumann 2006) and procedural or content-independent ethics like contractualism (van Oosterhout, Heugens, and Kaptein 2006), Instmmentalism versus Institutionalism A third debate that represents a cmcial fault line in the discipline centers on the question as to whether organizations are primarily instmments through which individuals aspire to achieve collective goals that they could not possibly meet when acting independently (Taylor 1911 ; Fayol 1949), or institutions which represent an intrinsic value in their own right, which extends beyond the net worth of, say, their discounted future eamings (Selznick 1949), We call the first position instrumentalism, the second institutionalism. Leading instmmentalist scholars include Tom Bums and G, M, Stalker (1961), James D, Thompson (1967), and Joan Woodward (1965), Instmmentalists primarily see modem, complex organizations as highly rational means to ends selected by their dominant members (Weber 1978), Due to their multifaceted character, however, organizations can typically serve several different ends simultaneously. The primary criterion by which instmmentalists judge the success of multi-constituent organizations is therefore the extent to which they manage to realize an adequate "inducements/contributions" balance in the eyes of all their core stakeholders (cf. Freeman 1984), In line with their instmmental stance towards the organization, such constituents will divest their interests in the organization when the opportunity cost of not investing in another project or venture becomes substantial (Aoki 2001), The instmmentalist position imposes some very difficult questions on the business ethics field, because it is difficult to reconcile notions like collectively upheld values, organizational (moral) identity, and corporate responsibility with a purely instmmental image of organizations. The incommensurability lies in the fact that whereas each of these notions presupposes that constituents are attracted to organizations at least in part for intrinsic reasons (cf, Heugens, Kaptein, and van Oosterhout 2006; Scherer and Palazzo forthcoming), the instmmentalist position recognizes only extrinsic reasons for affiliation with organizations (as pointed out by Maclntyre 1984), Institutional approaches can be divided into those which perceive of organizations as actors subjected to the infiuence of (supra-organizational) institutional forces ("new" institutionalism) and those which perceive of organizations as institutions in their own right ("old" institutionalism) (Heugens and Lander 2009), What we refer to as "institutionalism" is synonymous with the latter approach. Leading "old" institutionalists include Peter Blau (1970), Alvin Gouldner (1954), and Philip Selznick (1949), According to institutionalists, organizations can over timethrough processes of institutionalizationbegin to represent a source of intrinsic worth over and above (and occasionally instead of; cf, Meyer and Zucker 1989) the instmmental value associated with their assets or captured by the goods and services they produce. Institutionalized organizations can form objects of identification, with which extemal parties actively seek to associate themselves. Such
649
voluntary associations with institutions are sought because institutions can feed into and shape individuals' social identity (Pratt 2000) or because their self-chosen affiliations elevate or reinforce their status and prestige (Podolny 1993). Institutionalism is a very important stance for business ethicists, because assumptions about the institutionalized character of organizations are a precondition for notions like the organization's moral identity, collectively upheld norms and values, and the organization's moral agency in general. Communities of Scholarship In the large but fragmented and multifaceted field of organization theory, the three aforementioned dimensions represent more than benign differences of insight and opinion among individual practitioners. They also represent deep fault lines which divide the field into various communities of scholarship. A convenient way of classifying and denoting the three most prominent communities has been proposed by Mary Jo Hatch (1997), who suggests that the field is colored by modem, symbolic, and postmodem perspectives (see Table 1). We echo her terminology, because it offers a convenient taxonomy of the organization theory field in its own right and because it encompasses a straightforward way of discussing the main themes which cut across the organization theory and business ethics disciplines. In contrast to Hatch, however, we do not speak of theoretical perspectives but of scholarly communities, because the three points of view are different and separate only because they spring from the rather compartmentalized organization of scholarship in the discipline.
Table 1: Three Communities of Scholarship in Organization Theory Modem Agentic assumption Cognitive assumption Value assumption Core approaches Individualism Realism Instrumentalism Organizational economics Contingency theory Organizational ecology Bureaucracy theory Resource dependence theory Symbolic Collectivism Constructivism Institutionalism Institutional theory Organizational identity theory Reputation and status theories Organizational culture Organizational enactment Postmodern Individualism / Collectivism Constructivism Cynical instrumentalism Critical management studies Narrative theory Discursive practices Feminist organization studies Organizational ideology Discourse analysis Deconstniction Narrative analysis Power Gender Domination Hegemony Unearthing the ideological forces and hegemonic structures behind everyday processes of organizing
Methodological Event history analysis Organizational ethnography traditions Regression-based techniques Grounded theory Economic modeling Thick description Core concepts Control Fit Efficiency Rationality Symbolism Myths Appropri ateness Legitimacy
Objective
Identifying the universal laws Understanding the manpromoting organizational ef- agement of meaning and ficiency and control processes of sensemaking in organizations
650
Modemist Community The modernist community of organizational scholars has as its main objective the identification of invariant regularities that explain organizational efficiency and that have a fair degree of similarity with laws of physical science, as well as the discovery of the contingencies determining the applicability of those principles in any given context (see Table 1 ; for an overview and critique of this view see: Numagami 1998). Some of the leading organizational theories developed by modem scholars include those captured under the banner of organizational economics (such as agency and transaction cost theory; Bamey and Hesterley 1996), contingency theory (Donaldson 2001), organizational ecology (Carroll 1984), bureaucracy theory (Heugens 2005), and resource dependence theory (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Modemist scholars tend to view organizations as aggregates of individuals. For some modemist scholars this is a matter of parsimony, because their theoretical frameworks simply do not need to reference social phenomena to arrive at an explanation of organizational behavior. Yet for other scholarsespecially those working in the organizational economics traditionthis is more an article of faith, because they are deeply wedded to the tradition of individualism and its instruments like utility functions and stable individual preferences. In cognitive terms, modemists strongly believe in a fixed and uncontested reality, and their analyses tend to stress formal rules and structures rather than informal or symbolic organizational features. Finally, in terms of value considerations, modernist scholars tend to view organizations instrumentally, as tools for the achievement of goals that are beyond the means of individuals acting on their own accord. Symbolic Community The symbolic community in organization theory has as its main objective the understanding and interpretation of the role of symbolism and meaning in organizational life, and of the processes of sensemaking and enactment that comprise modem organizations (see Table 1). Naturally, satisfying this interpretative objective often requires a different set of methods than those employed by modemist scholars, and symbolists therefore tend to favor more qualitative approaches like (organizational) ethnography and grounded theory, which allow for the discovery of latent meaning structures in human discourses and practices. Core approaches in the symbolic domain include institutional theory (Heugens and Lander 2009; but note that a number of institutionalists commonly rely on quantitative research designs and have limited interpretivist ambitions), organizational identity theory (Pratt 2000), theories on organizational status and reputation (Podolny 1993), organizational culture theory (Martin 1992), and organizational enactment theory (Weick 1979). Although these various approaches differ markedly in terms of their scope and explanatory apparatus, they do tend to occupy similar positions on the three aforementioned dimensions. All symbolic scholars insist on the existence and importance of social facts (cf. Durkheim 1982). After all, the core phenomena they seek to explain are quintessential examples of such social facts, such as legitimacy, status, reputation, and culture. On the agentic dimension, symbolists tend to view organizations as collective actors in their own right, capable of deciding, acting, and remembering. In cognitive terms.
651
symbolists tend to be constmctivists. They see the world of organizations not as a mind-independent reality, but as a set of processes of organizing that are actively shaped by the perceptions, beliefs, and cognitive frames of the natural persons involved in enacting them. Finally, in terms of value considerations, symbolists see organizations as repositories of intrinsic worth, representing sources of perceived symbolic value in the eyes of spectators (Lamertz and Heugens 2009) that complement and may even surpass their fundamental material value. Postmodem Community The postmodem community of organization theorists is certainly the smallest of the three identified here, as well as possibly the most diverse (Hatch 1997), but it has still managed to establish a position of prominence for itself. Not only has it influenced (and in part spawned) a dedicated set of scholarly joumals that by now have come to embrace postmodemism as one of their preferred areas of content (e.g.. Human Relations, Journal ofManagement Inquiry, Organization, and Organization Studies), it is also increasingly finding its way into prestigious general management joumals. Due to the heterogeneity of perspectives and traditions captured under the header of postmodemism it is difficult to identify any singular position that does full justice to all members comprising this community, but many postmodem scholars are aiming to unearth ideological forces and hegemonic stmctures behind everyday processes of organizing, usually through a dual analysis of both substantive corporate practices and symbolic organization discourse (see Table 1). For the sake of completeness, however, it is important to stress that many postmodem scholars do not have a political agenda, but instead try to make sense of a fast-changing world in which yesterday's unchallenged "truths," which were postulated by traditional authorities like the church, the state, or academia, are unmasked today as mere conventions. While these conventions are increasingly inadequate to changing social realities, they often do not yield easily to emerging altemative interpretations, which makes postmodem societies more pluralist and complex than their modem predecessors, hence inviting the analysis of postmodem analysts. Some of the main perspectives in postmodem organization theory include critical management studies (Alvesson and Willmott 1992; Scherer 2009), narrative theory (Boje 1991), discursive practices (Phillips, Lawrence, and Hardy 2004), feminist organization studies (Calas and Smircich 1996, 2009), and analyses of organizational ideology (Willmott 1993b). It is nearly impossible to project postmodem scholars as a group onto the agentic dimension. Some postmodemist see organizations as actors in their own right, who can develop, enact, and maintain positions of power and stmctures of domination (e.g., Townley 1993). Yet others perceive of life in postmodem societies as a kind of deeply individualized experience, in which all sensory perceptions and cognitive interpretations are deeply personal and impossible to aggregate to higher levels of analysis (e.g.. Knights 1997). More unity can be found on the cognitive and value dimensions. Practically all postmodem scholars are social constmctivists who may not be blind to material conditions, but who nonetheless reserve center stage in their analyses for the co-constmcted and cognitively shaped facets of the social world. Furthermore, most postmodemists approach organizations with an almost cynical
652
instrumentalist outlook, and are often interested in uncovering how seemingly benign communal goals can mask or be perverted into more malign and particularistic structures of power, hegemony, control, and domination. FOUR CORE THEMES IN ORGANIZATION THEORY AND BUSINESS ETHICS The second objective we set ourselves at the start of this paper was to identify the major themes that play a central role in both the organization theory and business ethics disciplines. In the following section we discuss four such themes: values, society, power, and organizations. While these themes have a long tradition in business ethics, it is interesting for business ethicists to learn how these topics are treated in organization studies. We discuss the role of these topics along the three organization theoretical perspectives mentioned in the preceding section. Values Modem Perspectives Modemist scholars have a tendency to treat the sciences as "value-free" (Weber 1949). This does not mean that in modem perspectives the role of values in individual or organizational decision-making is neglected. It means that modemists do not argue in favor of a particular value or consider a certain value position good or bad, but instead remain in a neutral position and focused on questions of truth. The goal of researchers adopting modem perspectives in their work is to provide objective knowledge about a reality that is given to the observer. The assumption is that by means of systematic observation and exploration, the researcher is able to identify the stmctures of organizational reality. This reality encompasses both the elements and relationships that make up the objective world, i.e., both the natural and the cultural or man-made world. In particular, those adhering to modem perspectives aim at the explanation of observable individual or organizational behavior with the help of general laws of causes and effects of certain phenomena, as well as of the conditions under which they occur (antecedent conditions) (Scherer 2003). Once cause and effect relationships are identified, this knowledge can be used to pursue the implicit aim of those immersed in modem perspectives, which is to predict and control social phenomena. Inasmuch as values are considered in the analysis, for example in economic theory (Bamey and Hesterley 1996) or in rational choice explanations (Abell 2000; Elster 1989), they are treated as exogenous to scientific analysis. In conventional economic analysis, the assumption is that actors have "given preferences." Any change in the behavior of economic actors does therefore not derive from changing preferences with respect to the rank-ordering of the action altematives open to them, but rather from shifts in the exogenous, material conditions determining the feasibility and attractiveness of these action altematives. The observed behavior of economic actors can therefore be explained as rational choices among alternatives and as adaptations to shifting exogenous constraints in order to pursue the given preferences of the individual.
653
Modemist scholars have been criticized for their focus on instrumental reason and efficiency. Critics maintain that a value free science is impossible and that any scientific endeavor rests on certain research interests that the researcher pursues (Habermas 1971; Scherer 2009), Modemists overemphasize a technical research interest in the prediction and control of social processes. In effect, critics argue, they deliver knowledge about social technologies that helps those who hold power in society to strengthen their position and to control and marginalize social groups that have less power (Burrell and Morgan 1979). Symbolic Perspectives For symbolic scholars, values are not given but instead socially constmcted. Different cultures and sub-cultures have different values and the task of the researcher is to explore the role of values in social life and to understand the variety of values. In doing so the researcher follows a practical research interest that is directed at the understanding of the subjective meanings of actions (Habermas 1971), The researcher does not simply rely on distant observation, but on interpretative and discursive practices. Only by engaging in direct communication with the focal actors the underlying values of individuals and communities can be understood (Martin 1992), In the symbolic perspective the assumption is that not just individuals, but organizations and collectives have values. These values are shaped by human interaction and give meaning, stability, and order to social life. Members of social communities treat these values as if they were real, which means that they become real in their consequences (Thomas and Thomas 1928), Established members of social communities attempt to socialize new members (e,g,, children, foreigners, novices in an organization, etc.), so that these intemalize the values and their meanings and reproduce the social order. Postmodem Perspectives Postmodem scholars also emphasize the social constmction of values. They reject the possibility of a neutral, value-free science and ask any researcher to reflect on his or her underlying assumptions and values that inevitably accompany any research effort (Calas and Smircich 1999; Steffy and Grimes 1986), However, postmodemists are also suspicious of the intemalization process assumed and described by scholars of symbolism. For postmodemists, in any social community there is a tendency that powerful groups manipulate and marginalize powerless groups so that the values of the powerful are pursued. For postmodemists there is a pluralism of values and lifestyles in the social world that should be preserved. Therefore they pursue an emancipatory research interest (Habermas 1971) and try to free individuals and social groups from any form of alienation, marginalization, and suppression (Alvesson and Willmott 1996; Scherer 2009), The postmodem position, however, leads to a paradox as postmodemists might be imposing their own emancipatory framework on subjects who might have a very different self-understanding. Likewise, it raises a paradox insofar as the "values and lifestyles" of the powerful (and other reactionaries typically criticized by postmodemists) are part of the pluralism of the social world as well. The responses to these
654
challenges are manifold. Adherents of critical theory emphasize the critical and emancipatory spirit of the enlightenment and advocate a universal position with respect to ethical norms and values (albeit perhaps at the risk of starting to sound more modem than postmodem; cf. Steffy and Grimes 1986), while proponents of (French) postmodem philosophy point to the historically and culturally contingent roots of theory and philosophy and thus tend to reveal a relativist logic (Willmott 1998).' Society Modem Perspectives Modem societies are integrated by formal mies and contracts, the enforcement powers of state institutions, hierarchical organizations, and economic exchange processes that substitute the status and culture based integration mechanisms of traditional social communities. Today, society is challenged by mass phenomena, anonymity, individualization of values and life-styles, and the erosion of tradition that lead to more complex and conflictive social relations (Giddens 1991; Scherer 2009). The differentiation of social systems into sub-systems is a response to the increasing complexity in modem society (Luhmann 1982, 1995). In modem society one can identify various sub-systems that specialize in certain societal functions, like the economy, politics, law, sciences, arts, etc., and focus on the efficient realization of given goals. These sub-systems operate according to their own sub-system-specific logicsthat is, costs for the economy, power for politics, justice for law, truth for the sciences, aesthetics for the arts, and so on. Therefore, from a modem perspective the primary steering mode of modemity is neither the unconditioned acceptance of traditional authorities and social customs nor is it the communicative understanding among individuals based on negotiated and shared plans of action. Rather it is the restrictions and incentives of the various sub-systems that condition and govem human behavior (Scherer 2009). As a result, modem society is govemed by instrumental rationality, i.e., the efficient choice of means for given ends within the respective sub-systems. There is a tendency, however, for instmmental rationality to become extended so that communicative reason is displaced by instmmental rationality, a process that Habermas (1984, 1987) has described as the "colonization of the lifeworld." He suggests that the understanding of the process of modernization requires a critical analysis of the social practices that sustain the pathologies of a one-sidedly rationalized lifeworld (Scherer 2009). Many modemists, however, speak of society only in a metaphorical sense. "There is no such thing as society" is a famous quote by Margaret Thatcher (1987), which also captures the economist's assumption that society is nothing more than an aggregate of individual choices and actions. The analysis of society, and of modemist social science in general, thus usually rests on methodological individualism. This is also reflected in liberal theories of society that conceive of society as an aggregation of contractual relationships between individuals that make rational choices in pursuing their personal interests (e.g., Elster 1989).^ As a consequence, there are no commonly shared goals in society, but only individual goals that are integrated by a system of contracts and rational choices.
655
Symbolic Perspectives In symbolic perspectives, society is a social construction and is treated as an entity of its own. Society is made up of individuals and institutions in processes of communications, i.e., society exists only by and through communications. Important societal institutions are the state, the professions, accreditation agencies, etc., because they define the rules of society and because they can bestow legitimacy on actors or revoke it. In the symbolic perspective, legitimacy can be understood as the social acceptance of actions or institutions and is ascribed to organizations in processes of social construction (Ashforth and Gibbs 1990; Berger and Luckmann 1966). Unlike modem perspectives, which focus primarily on efficiency, the legitimacy of actors, behaviors, and organizations is considered a critical resource for organizations, as it is a precondition for the continuous flow of resources and sustained support by the organization's constituencies. Legitimacy is a crucial resource, because it enables actors to secure a persistent (in-)flow of resources, which they require in order to maintain their existence (Heugens and Lander 2009). Postmodem Perspectives Postmodem perspectives on society are quite diverse. In postmodern perspectives, society is integrated by a variety of mechanismsthrough communications, common culture and history, power, and contestation. Unlike the modem perspective, which rests on liberal theories of society and emphasizes freedom, social exchange, and contractual (formal) relationships, postmodem perspectives consider both the formal and informal sources of power and authority and explore the role of altemative integration mechanisms. For example, postmodemists who are influenced by French philosophy analyze how dominant groups shape social institutions (like organizations, govemments, prisons, etc.; Foucault 1979), social judgments (as to whether a person is sane or insane, normal or marginal; Foucault 1961), and social rules (such as those for the evaluation of one's status or competencies). In their attention to social integration processes, postmodem perspectives show some similarity to, or affinity with, communitarian theories of society, which suggest that individuals and their relations are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities (though without necessarily understanding that shaping in postmodern fashion; see, for example, Maclntyre 1984; Taylor 1989; Walzer 1995). Like communitarian scholars, postmodem organization theorists criticize the individual-centric perspective of liberal theories and emphasize that the interests of the individuals have to be balanced by a direct concem with the well-being of the community as a whole. Postmodem organization theorists, in their view of society, also show affinities with critical theory and deliberative theory. Regarding the latter, Habermasthough not himself a postmodemisthas analyzed the role of communication as a medium for societal integration and of ideal discourse as a counterbalance for social exchanges influenced by power (Habermas 1984, 1987). In ideal discourse, imbalances of power can be mediated by the "forceless force of the better argument" (Habermas 1990a: 185). In his more recent writings Habermas develops a deliberative theory of democratic society in order to address the various mechanisms that are used in democratic politics (such as, for example, discourse, compromise, power politics.
656
etc.) and their interplay, and to analyze various forms of public deliberation with and beyond state institutions (like parliaments, govemments, political parties, etc.) (Habermas 1996, 1998). Power Modem Perspectives Power is one of the more problematic but also one of the more indispensable concepts in the social sciences. Power is problematic, as Lukes (2005) explains, for two reasons. It is primitive, first, in the sense that it cannot be defined by referencing any term that is not at least as contentious as the concept itself (power is frequently defined in terms of Weberian "influence," Nietzschean "will," or Foucauldian "subjection," yet neither concept is less controversial than the notion of power itself). Second, power is essentially contested, in that what counts as "power" cannot be disconnected from the value assumptions of the onlookerwe perceive as powerful those actors that wield influence over people that are near to us or that can affect affairs that matter to us, but our judgment can be second-guessed by others holding different value assumptions. Yet power is also an indispensable concept, as it underpins or even constitutes the agentic dimension in processes like social change, intervention, resistance, conflict, and innovation. In modem organizational and ethical theories, assessments of power mostly, though not exclusively, focus on what Etzioni (1975) calls "coercive" and "utilitarian" power. Although coercive power is traditionally portrayed as deriving from the threat of physical sanctions, it can also stem from unchecked bureaucratic authority and from unbalanced material dependence relationships (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Utilitarian power is conventionally understood as emanating from an organization's ability to bestow material rewards like goods, services, and money. The main difference between these two power bases is that coercive power can be used to force individuals into compliance even against their will, whereas utilitarian power is rooted more in persuasion and has somewhat greater respect for the decision autonomy of the individual. In addition to these two broad power bases, modem scholars have also suggested several more specific (non-coercive and non-remunerative) mechanisms of social control, including expertise, positional legitimacy, and charisma (Weber 1978). In social relationships, power can be defined as the chance that a certain person can achieve his or her own interests, occasionally even against the resistance of others (Weber 1978). Consequently, in modem theories the analysis of power is focused on "concrete, observable behavior" (Lukes 1974: 17, emphasis in original) in relation to rather overt conflicts between organized interests. Although coercion and remuneration are the primary compliance mechanisms in modem theories, they must not be understood as total and unidirectional concepts, especially not in the economic context. As Weber notes, every power relationship "implies a minimum of voluntary compliance, that is, an interest (based on ulterior motives or genuine acceptance) in obedience" (Weber 1978:212). Thus, whereas relationships between manager and subordinate, between employer and employee are surely grounded in power, coercion, and remuneration, they are also grounded in deeper, rational rea-
657
sons on behalf of both parties to continue with the relationship, which gives power a contingent rather than an absolute property. Power plays a large role in modem organizational theories like resource dependence theory, and in ethical approaches like positive stakeholder theory (Donaldson and Preston 1995; Mitchell, Agle, and Wood 1997). Symbolic Perspectives In symbolic perspectives, power takes on a rather different form, and relies on the mechanism of (subliminal) persuasion. Rather than focusing on the ability of actors to resolve overt conflicts in their favor, symbolists explore how organizations can use the "soft power" (Nye 2004) of ideologies and institutions to effectuate acquiescence and compliance in others. In the words of Lukes: "Is it not the supreme and most insidious exercise of power to prevent people, to whatever degree, from having grievances by shaping their perceptions, cognitions and preferences in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order of things, either because they can see or imagine no altemative to it, or because they value it as divinely ordained and beneficial?" (Lukes 1974: 28). Soft power emerges from two hierarchically related sources. At the macro level, "infomediary" (Deephouse and Heugens 2009) organizations may succeed at setting national and intemational media and policy agendas through lobbying, sensitizing, campaigning, or any other efforts at informing publics of the consequences of acting upon or neglecting certain issues. Subsequently, what "gets on" the agenda is likely to stimulate subsequent action and debate. At the microlevel, institutions infuse their members with the values they encapsulate as well as the cognitive schemata they represent through a combination of self-selection, socialization, and selective promotion and retention, such that they begin to condition the behavior and thought processes of their constituents (Holm 1995). Symbolic, seductive power plays a major role in institutional theory, as well as in various forms of applied and professional ethics. Postmodem Perspectives In the postmodem perspective, power is a pluriform concept. Given the range of postmodem thought, it is impossible to give a unitary conceptualization of "postmodem power," but at the very least it can be stated that whereas modern and symbolic theorists tend to focus on rather unitary power axes, postmodem thinkers tend to replace these with a plurality of power/discourse formations. If we want to understand how power plays out in postmodem discourse, it is tempting to follow Leffel's (1996) distinction between skeptical and affirmative postmodemists. Skeptical postmodernists attempt to uncover what in their view the underlying motivations for other people's tmth claims are, and to show how power structures can lead us to accept certain particularistic ideas as broader truths. Their methods range from deconstmctionism (Derrida 1973, 1976) and simulacra (Baudrillard 1994) to the rejection of metanarratives (Lyotard 1984). Affirmative postmodemists see power positively, as a tool for the creation of new realities and ideas. For them, the abolishment of the kind of objective and absolute truths propagated by science, the professions, and the religions opens the door to social and cultural change. New
658
creativity and ideas are a much desired byproduct of breaking down monolithic control and compliance stmctures, even though over time deviance might become dogma, and innovations may become conventions. Postmodem analyses of power tend to surface in organization theories of communication and identity (Gioia 1998), as well as in the ethics of care and religion (Foucault 1961). Organizations Modem Perspectives In modem perspectives the organization is conceived as a tool for the efficient accomplishment of collective goals. The environment and the organization are considered to be real and separable entities that can be analyzed with the help of the sciences. The organization is modeled like a machine with separable parts, functions, and identifiable cause and effect relations. The aim of organization theory is to identify these cause and effect relationships and to "engineer" the organization so that it is well designed and enhances efficiency. While early modem approaches searched for the "one best way" of organizational design and advanced a bureaucratic model of the organization (Weber 1978), the contingency approach of organization theory suggests that the optimal design depends on the circumstances of the situation. According to this view the most efficient design of the organization is dependent upon many factors such as the environment, technologies, people, goals, size, life-cycle, etc. (Donaldson 2001), Consequently, organizational scholars have analyzed the role of the environment (Bums and Stalker 1961), technology (Woodward 1965) and size (Blau 1970) in explaining organizational stmcture. Organizations have to adapt to the requirements of the specific situation in order to maintain their efficiency. Modem organization theory provides knowledge about stable cause and effect relationships that explain the efficiency of organizational stmctures and that form the basis for the development of methods and techniques of organizational design and control. Economic approaches emphasize the role of individual behavior and conscious choice. They conceive of organizational design as a result of rational choices that individuals make in order to pursue their goals. Whether social exchange is coordinated by the price mechanism in markets, by tmst or affect in networks, or by hierarchy in organizations depends on the relative efficiency of the various design altematives, which is in tum driven by their relative costs of effectuating transactions in specific circumstances (Bamey and Hesteriey 1996; Williamson 1975, 1985), Rational actors will select those design altematives that fit their interests best. Symbolic Perspectives In the symbolic perspective the organization is seen as the result of a social constmction and is treated as a cultureas a system of shared beliefs and interpretations. It is continuously "enacted" by their members in processes of symbolically mediated interaction. The organization largely exists only in the minds of organizational members and extemal stakeholders. They "make sense" of the organization (Weick 1979) by not simply representing organizational reality, but by producing organizational reality as they interact, negotiate, and communicate with each other and make sense
659
of their experiences and interpretations (Isabella 1990). Any manifestations, such as organizational mies and charts, do not have an objective meaning, but rely on the common interpretation made by the organization's constituencies that influence their behavior. The organization is stabilized or changed inasmuch as the organizational members intemalize or change the organization's underlying beliefs and values. Postmodem Perspectives In postmodem perspectives, organizations are considered as arenas of control and contestation. Seen from this view, powerful individuals or groups establish organizations in order to define the rules for and to gain control over organization members. In particular, they attempt to monopolize knowledge in order to maintain their influence over others (Foucault 1980). Postmodemists attempt to destabilize modemist ideologies of objectivity and efficiency in the design of organizations. Postmodemists want to preserve the pluralism of perspectives and at the same time they want to support marginalized and oppressed positions, which implies the paradox that powerful perspectives should be weakened rather than preserved. Their focus is on texts and rhetorics that produce organizations. From a postmodem view, these texts can be rewritten in order to provide altematives and to prevent the marginalization and degradation of altemative viewpoints (Derrida 1973, 1976). CONTRIBUTIONS OF ORGANIZATION THEORY TO BUSINESS ETHICS Organization theory can be a valuable source of intellectual inspiration for research in business ethics. A further objective of the present paper is therefore to identify both the realized and potential contributions of organizational scholarship to the business ethics discipline. We distinguish at least six such contributions: development of substantive insights, methodological inspiration, exploration of the societyorganization interface, critical analysis of power, theoretical flexibility through pluralism and contestation, and analysis of social change. Source of Substantive Insights Organization theory has long been a valuable source of substantive insights for business ethics. This is certainly true for the modem perspectives, which have informed business ethics research about the relationships between organizational stmctures and exogenous variables such as the environment, technologies, life cycles, etc. (Tsoukas and Knudsen 2003). These insights have been used to reflect on organizational outcomes that are of ethical relevance, such as job satisfaction, fluctuation, safety at the workplace, and many others. In symbolic perspectives the analysis of core concepts such as legitimacy (Suchman 1995), reputation (Deephouse and Carter 2005), sensemaking (Basu and Palazzo 2008), and identity (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Comelissen, Haslam, and Balmer 2007) delivers valuable knowledge for theorizing on the ethical issues in business. In addition, the symbolic perspective routinely explores the role of culture, which is a cmcial ingredient in the organizational ethics literature (Trevio 1990; Trevio, Weaver, and Reynolds 2006). In postmodern perspectives, issues such as power (Clegg 2009), gender (Calas and Smircich 1996),
660
domination (Courpasson 2001), and hegemony are of primary concem. These issues are also important for the student of business ethics, who can leam from the critical mode of analysis in the postmodem perspective (Alvesson, Willmott, and Bridgman 2009; Clegg, Hardy, and Nord 1996), Source of Methodological Inspiration Likewise, organization theory is also a source of methodological inspiration. In business ethics, various methodologies have been imported from modem organization theory, which emphasize empirical and quantitative methods. Event history analysis, meta-analysis, path models, regression-based techniques, economic modeling, and other standard research tools of the social sciences have successfully been applied to the study of ethical problems in business. More recently, research technologies like laboratory experiments and the methods of neuroscience have become incorporated into business ethics (Reynolds 2006), Likewise, the various methods that have been developed by scholars accustomed to adopting symbolic perspectives (e,g,, organizational ethnography, grounded theory, thick description) or postmodem perspectives (discourse analysis, deconstmction, narrative analysis) either have already been used in or are of high potential for the analysis of ethical questions on societal, organizational, or individual levels (see, e,g,, Alvesson, Willmott, and Bridgman 2009; Buchanan and Bryman 2009; Tsoukas and Knudsen 2003), Focus on Organization-Society Interface Organization theory focuses on the exploration of meso and macro level issues. Many students in the field pay particular attention to the organization-society interface which is of interest for business ethics. One modem perspectiveresource dependence theoryemphasizes the importance of extemal resources for the continuous existence of the organization (Frooman 1999), Likewise the symbolic perspective discusses the role of organizational legitimacy (Suchman 1995) and analyzes how this is constmcted in the societal environment of the organization. In the postmodem perspective various societal theories have been developed as an altemative to the mainstream liberal theory of society. Critical social theory (Habermas 1984,1987), communitarianism, republicanism, and other macro-level approaches to social theory have already found their way into the business ethics literature (Moon, Crane, and Matten 2005; Scherer, Palazzo, and Baumann 2006), Critical Analysis of Power Some of the perspectives mentioned above focus on the critical analysis of the role of power in social relations (Clegg 2009), This is especially tme for the postmodem perspective that aims at unearthing the ideological forces and hegemonic stmctures behind everyday processes of organizing, Foucault (1980), for example, points to the inextricable relation between power and knowledge. Others study the process of how various ideologies gain prominence or how minority groups become marginalized by powerful groups. While the postmodem philosophies concentrate on the analysis of power and maintain that power is unavoidable in social structures.
661
students of critical theory explore the conditions under which uncoerced communication and interaction becomes possible so that there is no power except for the "forceless force of the better argument" (Habermas 1990a: 185; for an overview see Scherer 2009). Pluralism and Contestation Enable Flexibility and Resilience Organization theory is a very pluralistic and incoherent field of research (Burrell and Morgan 1979; Gioia and Pitre 1990; Heugens 2008; Tsoukas and Knudsen 2003). While this presents a problem for the application of organization theoretical insights in neighboring scholarly fields and in practice (see the limitation of incommensurability mentioned below), it is also a valuable source of inspiration. The various theories can be seen as analytical tools that are helpful for the analysis of particular problems. The more theories are available, the bigger the toolbox and the larger the variety of organizational or ethical problems that can be addressed. Therefore, a number of scholars advocate a multi-paradigm view in organizational research in order to gain more comprehensive insights (e.g., Gioia and Pitre 1990; Weaver and Gioia 1994). Analysis of Social Change While many organizational theories deliver a static analysis of the status quo of organizations or social systems, a number of theories attempt to explain social or organizational change (Burrell and Morgan 1979). Organizational or institutional change has been a topic of interest for organization theorists for a number of decades in the modem perspective (e.g., Carroll 1984; North 1990). More recently, in the symbolic perspective, neo-institutional approaches were developed that advance concepts such as "institutional entrepreneurship" (DiMaggio 1988) or "social movements" (Davis, McAdam, Scott, and Zald 2005), which are of interest to the student of business ethics. These insights may help understand processes like the transformation of national economies or societies into regional or even global markets or societies, and may help to address the various ethical problems that are related to globalization (den Hond and de Bakker 2007). LIMITATIONS OF ORGANIZATION THEORY Even though we are optimistic with respect to the potential contributions of organization theory to business ethics, we also see a number of problems associated with organization theory that limit the potential symbiosis between both fields. As a fourth and final objective for our paper we therefore propose to map the shortcomings of the organization theory discipline which limit its potential for informing business ethical scholarship. We consider six weaknesses in particular: a lack of micro-foundations, neglect of the role of leadership, failure to account for social innovations, an inherently retrospective perspective, incommensurability of theories, and vagueness conceming ethical questions.
662
Ignoring Micro-Foundations and Human Agency Many of the organizational perspectives mentioned above focus on the structural dimension of organizations or societies, that are the meso and macro levels of analysis. Behavioral aspects at the micro level of analysis are either marginalized or neglected, which is also evident in the separation of organization theory and organizational behavior as quite distinct fields with separate research communities, conferences, joumals, and the like. Contingency theories of organizations, for example, explore how organizational stmctures are determined by various contingency factors (e.g., organizational size, environmental complexity, technology) without taking human agency into account. This has been criticized quite early (Child 1972) but has still not been resolved. Likewise, in institutional theory human agency is peripheral to the analysis of institutionalization processes. The stmctural and behavioral dimensions of organizational analysis have not yet been sufficiently integrated in organization theory, despite the promising efforts in fields such as behavioral economics (Camerer, Loewenstein, and Matthew 2003; Kahneman 2003; Kahneman and Tversky 2000) or stmcturation theory (Giddens 1984). For theorizing on business ethics the separation of structure and human agency presents a problem, as in the analysis of the ethical problems of business both dimensionsstmcture and agencyplay a significant role (Trevio, Weaver, and Reynolds 2006). Ignoring the Role of Leadership Related to the neglect of micro-foundations, the role of leadership is widely underestimated in organization theory (Bies, Bartunek, Fort, and Zald 2007). The field emphasizes the significance of societal and organizational stmctures but does hardly acknowledge a significant role for organizational leaders in organizational analysis. Obviously, there are no "great man theories" in organization theory. Recently, several proposals have been made for new conceptions of global leadership (Doh and Stumpf 2005), responsible leadership (Maak and Pless 2006) or ethical leadership (Brown and Trevio 2006) that are important for theorizing on business ethics. However, these new emerging theories originate from or are inspired by studies in organizational behavior or organizational psychology rather than organization theory (see, e.g., Trevio, Weaver, and Reynolds 2006). Therefore, a systematic integration of leadership studies with organization theory has not yet been achieved. Neglect of Social Innovations Organization theory is more concemed with the diffusion rather than with the origin of social innovations. "Where do social innovations come from?" is a question that is extremely underresearched in organization theory. Even theories of organizational change and knowledge management focus more on the implementation of new policies and stmctures and on exploitation rather than on innovation and exploration. As a consequence, the impetus for social innovation and societal reform is often treated as exogenous to the analysis. The more recent research on the role of social change agents in social change processes may help to fill this research gap (Bies, Bartunek, Fort, and Zald 2007).
663
Retrospectiveness "Where are the theories for the new organizational forms?" was the title of a seminal paper by Daft and Lewin (1993). The authors address the problem that the organization theory discipline hardly generates proposals for new organizational forms, but rather analyzes in retrospect what has been invented and applied elsewhere (e.g., in management practice). This is also obvious when students of business ethics consider the ethical implications of altemative organizational structures (see, e.g., Paine 1994). Pluralism and Incommensurability of the Field This issue has been discussed in the so-called "paradigm war" in organization theory (Willmott 1993a). A plurality of conceptions, theories, and schools of thought exist in the discipline (Burrell and Morgan 1979). Some of these are based on ontological, epistemological, and philosophical assumptions that are incompatible with each other, such that some scholars speak of a situation of "incommensurability" (Burrell and Morgan 1979; Gioia and Pitre 1990). The implications of incommensurability have been widely discussed and it is still unclear whether the field should promote more pluralism and separation or take measures to reunify and reintegrate the various schools of thought (Heugens 2008; Scherer 1998; Scherer and Steinmann 1999). While students of organization theory may live well with a situation of pluralism and the variety of organizational communities, the implications for neighboring fields or for practice are ambiguous, as neither scholars in other fields nor practicing managers receive coherent advice or orientation from organization theorists that could help them to address their theoretical or practical problems. Normative Vagueness Many schools of thought in organization theory do not engage normative questions. This is certainly the case for the modem perspectives on organization theory that propagate value-free science and aim at the explanation and prediction of social phenomena without analyzing whether these phenomena can be considered ethically right or wrong (Steffy and Grimes 1986). This normative vacuity applies also to symbolic perspectives that are more concemed with understanding the meaning of actions and social phenomena. Their focus is on the description of social phenomena rather than their normative-ethical assessment (Stablein and Nord 1985; Steffy and Grimes 1986). In postmodem analysis, the situation is more ambiguous. Postmodem philosophers deliver theories for the critical analysis of social stmctures and practices without, however, developing an altemative of what the social world should look like (see Parker 1992; Willmott 1998). An exception is the critical theory of the so-called Frankfurt School that aims at the development of a normative social theory (Habermas 1984,1987). This school of thought is influential both in critical management studies (Alvesson and Willmott 1992; Scherer 2009) and more recently in business ethics and research on corporate social responsibility (e.g., Gilbert and Rasche 2007; Palazzo and Scherer 2006; Scherer and Palazzo 2007, 2008, forthcoming).
664
CONCLUSION Our claim throughout this paper has been that the current intellectual division between the organization theory and business ethics disciplines is more appropriate fodder for sociologists of science than for historians of ideas. The two disciplines simply reflect on the complementary positive and normative sides of organizational structures and processes, cultures and identities, interests and power positions, as well as numerous other organizational aspects. The persistent lack of communication between the two disciplines (notable exceptions aside) is therefore sustained more by the tribal organization of academia than by any major intellectual chasm separating these two vocational fields. But while we acknowledge the present radio silence, we also warned our readership from the onset that the present paper would convey an unmistakably optimistic belief in the potential for an interesting and synergetic dialogue between the two fields. What we need in order to jumpstart this conversation is not so much a new research agenda (as the answers to any question such an agenda might contain will likely only entrench academic speciahsts deeper in their own disciplinary organizations), but a genuine call to arms. In recognition of the fact that science is a social practice, organization theorists and business ethicists must make greater efforts to jointly: engage in academic meetings, guest-edit special issues of journals, organize small-scale workshops, supervise doctoral students, subscribe to each others' journals, blogs, forums, and list servers, write grant proposals, serve on scientific committees, and much, much more. We will certainly try to rise to this challenge ourselves, and invite you, our readers, to join our efforts or to engage in parallel initiatives. As two individuals who are familiar with both disciplines, we can promise you that you will not be disappointed: the intellectual rewards that follow from combining positive and normative approaches to the analysis of organizations in their social context are simply too gratifying and attractive. NOTES
1. It is important here to note that Habermas would not consider himself as part of the postmodern research community as it is described here with reference to Hatch 1997. Habermas develops a broader conception of modernity and criticizes contemporary "modem" science for its focus on instrumental reason and its neglect of normative ethics and communicative reason. Likewise, Habermas criticizes postmodern philosophy for its culture and history bound theoretical analysis that does not aim at developing a universal concept of reason that would further enhance the process of Enlightenment (see Habermas 1993) butin his viewleads to relativism (Habermas 1990b). Habermas considers his own work as being part of the "unfinished project of modernity" and the research tradition of the Enlightenment (see Habermas 1997; Passerin d'Entrves and Benhabib 1997). 2. Note that our use of the word "liberal" is different from the way the word is commonly used in the United States, where "liberal" in political terms means "left of center." We follow the literature on political philosophy and use this word in order to refer to the liberal tradition of the nineteenth century, with its emphasis on individual liberty as the main concern of social theory and voluntary exchange among private individuals as the primary mode of societal integration (see Scherer and Palazzo 2007).
665
REFERENCES
Abell, P 2000. "Sociological Theory and Rational Choice Theory," in The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, ed. B. S. Turner. Oxford: Blackwell, 223-44. Alvesson, M., and H. Willmott, eds. 1992. Critical Management Studies. London: Sage. 1996. Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage. Alvesson, M., H. Willmott, and T. Bridgman, eds. 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Critical Management Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aoki, M. 2001. Towarda Comparative Institutional Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Ashforth, B. E., and B. W. Gibbs. 1990. "The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation," Organization Science 1: 177-94. Ashforth, B. E., and F. Mael. 1989. "Social Identity Theory and the Organization," Academy of Management Review 14(1): 20-39. Bamey, J., and W. Hesteriey. 1996. "Organizational Economics: Understanding the Relationship between Organizations and Economic Analysis," in Handbook of Organization Studies, ed. S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W, R. Nord. London: Sage, 115^7. Basu, K., and G. Palazzo. 2008. "Corporate Social Responsibility: A Process Model of Sensemaking," Academy of Management Review 33: 122-36. Baudrillard, J. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Bauman, Z. 1993. Postmodern Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell, Benhabib, S, 1992. Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodemism in Contemporary Ethics. London: Routledge. Berger, B. L., and T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor. Bies, R. J., J. M. Bartunek, T. L. Fort, and M. N. Zald. 2007. "Corporations as Social Change Agents: Individual, Interpersonal, Institutional, and Environmental Dynamics," Academy of Management Review 32: 788-93. Blau, P. M. 1970. "A Formal Theory of Differentiation in Organizations," American Sociological Review 35(2): 201-18. Boje, D, M. 1991. "The Storytelling Organization: A Study of Story Performance in an Office-Supply Firm," Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 106-26. Brown, M. E., and L. K. Trevio. 2006. "Ethical Leadership: A Review and Future Directions," Leadership Quarterly 17: 595-616. Buchanan, D. A., and A. Bryman, eds. 2009, The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: Sage. Bums, T., and G. M. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Oxford University Press. Burrell, G., and G. Morgan. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. London: Heineman.
666
Calas, M. B., and L. Smircich. 1996. "From 'The Woman's' Point of View: Feminist Approaches to Organization Studies," in Handbook of Organization Studies, ed. S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. R. Nord. London: Sage, 218-57. 1999. "Past Postmodernism? Reflections and Tentative Directions," Academy of Management Review 24: 649-71. 2009. "Feminist Perspectives on Gender in Organizational Research: What Is It Yet to Be," in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, ed. D. A. Buchanan and A. Bryman. London: Sage, 246-69. Camerer, C. F., G. Loewenstein, and R. Matthew, eds. 2003. Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Carroll, G. R. 1984. "Organizational Ecology" Annual Review of Sociology 10: 71-93. Child, J. 1972. "Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice," Sociology 6: 1-22. Clegg, S. R. 2009. "Doing Power Work," in The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, ed. D. A. Buchanan and A. Bryman. London: Sage, 143-59. Clegg, S. R., C. Hardy, and W. R. Nord, eds. 1996. Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage. Comelissen, J. P., S. A. Haslam, and J. M. T. Balmer. 2007. "Societal Identity, Organizational Identity and Corporate Identity: Towards an Integrated Understanding of Processes, Pattemings and Products," British Journal of Management 18: S1-S16. Courpasson, D. 2001. "Managerial Strategies of Domination: Power in Soft Bureaucracies," Organization Studies 21: 141-61. Crane, A., D. Matten, and J. Moon. 2008. Corporations and Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daft, R. L., and A. Y. Lewin. 1993. "Where Are the Theories for the 'New' Organizational Forms? An Editorial Essay," Organization Science 4: i-vi. Davis, G. F., D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, and M. N. Zald, eds. 2005. Social Movements and Organization Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Deephouse, D. L., and S. M. Carter. 2005. "An Examination of Differences between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation," Journal of Management Studies 42: 329-60. Deephouse, D. L., and P. P. M. A. R. Heugens. 2009. "Linking Social Issues to Organizational Impact: The Role of Infomediaries and the Infomediary Process," Journal of Business Ethics 86: 541-53. den Hond, F., and F. G. A. de Bakker. 2007. "Ideologically Motivated Activism: How Activist Groups Influence Corporate Social Change Activities," Academy of Management Review 32: 901-24. Derrida, J. 1973. Speech and Phenomena. Evanston, III: Northwestem University Press. 1976. Of Grammatology. Balimore: John Hopkins University Press. DiMaggio, P. 1988. "Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory," in Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, ed. L. G. Zucker. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 3-21.
667
Doh, J. P., and S. A. Stumpf, eds. 2005. Handbook on Responsible Leadership and Governance in Global Business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Donaldson, L. 2001. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. New York: Sage. Donaldson, T, and L. E. Preston. 1995. "The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications," Academy of Management Review 20: 65-91. Durkheim, . 1982. The Rules of the Sociological Method. New York: Free Press. Elster, J. 1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Etzioni, A. 1975. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations: On Power, Involvement, and Their Correlates. New York: Free Press. Fairclough, N. 2005. "Discourse Analysis in Organization Studies: The Case for Critical Realism," Organization Studies 26: 915-39. Fayol, H. 1949. General and Industrial Management. London: Pitman. Foucault, M. 1961. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. London: Routledge. 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected Interviews and other Writings, ]972-1977, ed. and trans. Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon Books. Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman. Frooman, J. 1999. "Stakeholder Influence Strategies," Academy of Management Review 24: 191-205. Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Gilbert, D. A., and A. Rasche. 2007. "Discourse Ethics and Social Accountability: The Ethics of SA 8000," Business Ethics Quarterly 17: 187-216. Gioia, D.A.I 998. "From Individual to Organizational Identity," in Identity in Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations, ed. D. A. Whetten and P. C. Godfrey. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 17-32. Gioia, D. A., and E. Pitre. 1990. "Multiparadigm Perspectives on Theory Building," Academy of Management Review 15: 584-602. Goodpaster, K. E., and J. B. Mathews Jr. 1982. "Can a Corporation Have a Conscience?" Harvard Business Review 60 (January/February): 132-41. Gouldner, A. W. 1954. Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press. Habermas, J. 1971. Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 1. Boston: Beacon Press. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action, vol. 2. Boston: Beacon Press. 1990a. The New Conservatism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1990b. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
668
1993. "The Unity of Reason in the Diversity of Its Voices," in Postmetaphysical Thinking: Philosophical Essays, ed. J. Habermas. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 115^8. 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1997. "Modemity: An Unfinished Project," in Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modemity: Critical Essays on the Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, ed. M. Passerin d'Entrves and S. Benhabib. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 38-57. 1998. "Three Normative Models of Democracy," in J. Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 239-52. Hassard, J. 1993. Sociology and Organization Theory: Positivism, Paradigms, and Postmodemity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hatch, M. J. 1997. Organization Theory: Modem, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hayek, F A. 1948. Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. 2005. "A Neo-Weberian Theory of the Firm," Organization Studies 26: 547-67. 2008. Organization Theory: Bright Prospects for a Permanently Failing Field. Available at SSRN: http://ssm.com/abstract=1268577. Heugens, P P M. A. R, S. R Kaptein, and J. van Oosterhout. 2006. "The Ethics of the Node versus the Ethics of the Dyad? Reconciling Virtue Ethics and Contractualism," Organization Studies 27: 391-411. 2008. "Contracts to Communities: A Processual Model of Organizational Virtue," Journal of Management Studies 45: 100-21. Heugens, P P. M. A. R., and M. W. Lander. 2009. "Stmcture! Agency! (And other Quarrels): A Meta-Analysis of Institutional Theories of Organization," Academy of Management Journal 52: 61-85. Holm, P. 1995. "The Dynamics of Institutionalization: Transformation Processes in Norwegian Fisheries," Administrative Science Quarterly 40: 398^22. Isabella, L. A. 1990. "Evolving Interpretations as a Change Unfolds. How Managers Construe Key Organizational Events," Academy of Management Joumal 33: 7-41. Kahneman, D. 2003. "A Perspective on Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality," American Psychologist 58: 697-720. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 2000. Choices, Values and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Knights, D. 1997. "Organization Theory in the Age of Deconstruction: Dualism, Gender, and Postmodemism Revisited," Organization Studies 18: 1-19. Lamertz, K., and P P. M. A. R. Heugens. 2009. "Institutional Translation through Spectatorship: Collective Consumption and Editing of Symbolic Organizational Texts by Firms and their Audiences," Organization Studies 30: 1249-79. Leffel, J. 1996. "Postmodemism and 'The Myth of Progress': Two Visions," in The Death of Truth, ed. Dennis McCallum. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 45-57. Luhmann, N. 1982. Differentiation of Society. New York: Columbia University Press.
W H E N ORGANIZATION THEORY M E T BUSINESS ETHICS
669
.. 1995. Social Systems. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan. 2005. "Power and the Battle for Hearts and Minds," Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33: 477-93. Lyotard, J. F. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Maak, T., and N. M. Pless. 2006. "Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder Society," Journal of Business Ethics 66: 99-115. Maclntyre, A. C. 1984. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. Mandeville, B. 1988. The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Public Benefits. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Martin, J. 1992. Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Meyer, M. W., and L. G. Zucker. 1989. Permanently Failing Organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Mitchell, R. K., B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood. 1997. "Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts," Academy of Management Review 22: 853-86. Moon, J., A. Crane, and D. Matten. 2005. "Can Corporations Be Citizens? Corporate Citizenship as a Metaphor for Business Participation in Society," Business Ethics Quarterly] 5: 429-54. North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Numagami, T. 1998. "The Infeasibility of Invariant Laws in Management Studies: A Reflective Dialogue in Defence of Case Studies," Organization Science 9: 2-15. Nye, J. S. 2004. Sofi Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: PublicAffairs. Paine, L. S. 1994. "Managing for Organizational Integrity," Harvard Business Review 11 (March-April): 106-17. Palazzo, G., and A. G. Scherer. 2006. "Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework," Journal of Business Ethics 66: 71-88. Parker, M. 1992. "Postmodern Organizations or Postmodern Organization Theory?" Organization Studies 13: 1-17. Passerin d'Entrves, M., and S. Benhabib, eds. 1997. Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity. Critical Essays on The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pettit, P. 1996. The Common Mind: An Essay on Psychology, Society, and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pfeffer, J., and G. R. Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
670
Phillips, N,, T. B. Lawrence, and C. Hardy. 2004. "Discourse and Institutions," Academy of Management Review 29: 635-52. Podolny, J. M. 1993. "A Status-Based Model of Market Competition," American Journal of Sociology 98: 829-72. Popper, K. 1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies (2 volumes), London: Routledge. Pratt, M. G. 2000. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ambivalent: Managing Identification among Amway Distributors," Administrative Science Quarterly 45: 456-93. Rao, H. 1994. "The Social Construction of Reputation: Certification Contests, Legitimation, and the Survival of Organizations in the American Automobile Industry: 19851912," Strategic Management Journal 15: 2 9 ^ 4 . Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Boston: Belknap Press. Reed, M. I. 2001. "Organization, Trust and Control: A Realist Analysis," Organization Studies 22: 201-28. Reynolds, S, J. 2006. "A Neurocognitive Model of the Ethical Decision-Making Process: Implications for Study and Practice," Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 7 3 7 ^ 8 , Rolston, H. 1975. "Is there an Ecological Ethic?" Ethics 85(2): 93-109. Rousseau, J. J. 1968. The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right. London: Penguin. Scherer, A. G. 1998. "Pluralism and Incommensurability in Strategic Management and Organization Theory: A Problem in Search of a Solution," Organization 5: 147-68. 2003. "Modes of Explanation in Organization Theory," in The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Theory, ed. H. Tsoukas and C. Knudsen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 310-44. ,, 2009, "Critical Theory and Its Contribution to Critical Management Studies," in The Oxford Handbook of Critical Management Studies, ed, M. Alvesson, H, Willmott, and T. Bridgman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29-51. Scherer, A. G., and G. Palazzo. 2007. "Toward a Political Conception of Corporate Social Responsibility: Business and Society Seen From a Habermasian Perspective," Academy of Management Review 32: 1096-1120. 2008. "Globalization and Corporate Social Responsibility," in The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility, ed. A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, and D. Siegel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 413-31. .. Forthcotning. "The New Political Role of Business in a Globalized World: A Review of a New Perspective on CSR and Its Implications for the Firm, Governance, and Democracy," Journal of Management Studies 48. Scherer, A. G., G. Palazzo, and D. Baumann. 2006. "Global Rules and Private Actors: Toward a New Role of the Transnational Corporation in Global Governance," Business Ethics Quarterly 16: 505-32. Scherer, A. G., and H. Steinmann. 1999. "Some Remarks on the Problem of Incommensurability in Organization Studies," Organization Studies 20: 51944. Selznick, P. 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of California Press. Simon, H. A. 1955, "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1): 99-118,
W H E N ORGANIZATION THEORY M E T BUSINESS ETHICS
671
Stablein, R., and W. Nord. 1985. "Practical and Emancipatory Interests in Organizational Symbolism: A Review and Evaluation," Journal of Management 11: 13-28. Steffy, B. D., and A. J. Grimes. 1986. "A Critical Theory of Organization Science," AcaJern}/ of Management Review 11: 322-36. Suchman, M. C. 1995. "Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches," Academy of Management Review 20: 571-610. Taylor, C. 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Taylor, F. W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Row. Thachankary, T. 1992. "Organizations as 'Texts': Hermeneutics as a Model for Understanding Organizational Change," Research in Organizational Change and Development 6: 197-233. Thatcher, M. 1987. "Aids, Education and the Year 2000!" Women's Own (October 31): 8-10. Available at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument .asp?docid= 106689. Thomas, W. I., and D. S. Thomas. 1928. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Knopf. Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tnnies, F. 2004. Community and Society. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers. Townley, B. 1993. "Foucault, Power/Knowledge, and Its Relevance for Human Resource Management," Acflem)' of Management Review 18: 518-45. Trevio, L. K. 1990. "A Cultural Perspective on Changing and Developing Organizational Ethics," in Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol. 4, ed. R. Woodman and W. Passmore. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, 195-230. Trevio, L. K., G. R. Weaver, and S. J. Reynolds. 2006. "Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A Review," Journal of Management 32: 951-90. Tsoukas, H., and C. Knudsen, eds. 2003. The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Oosterhout, J., P. P. M. A. R. Heugens, and S. P. Kaptein. 2006. "The Internal Morality of Contracting: Advancing the Contractualist Endeavor in Business Ethics," Academy of Management Review 31: 521-39. Walzer, M. 1995. Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality. Oxford: Blackwell. Weaver, G. R., andD. Gioia. 1994. "Paradigms Lost: Incommensurability vs Structurationist Inquiry," Organization Studies 15: 565-90. Weber, M. 1949. "Objectivity in Social Science and Social Policy," in On the Methodology of the Social Sciences, ed. E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of Califomia Press. Weick, K. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Redding, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies. New York: Free Press. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press. Willmott, H. 1993a. "Breaking the Paradigm Mentality," Organization Studies 14: 681-719.
672
1993b. "Strength Is Ignorance; Slavery Is Freedom: Managing Culture in Modem Organisations," Journal of Management Studies 30: 515-52. 1998. "Towards a New Ethics? The Contributions of Poststructuralism and Posthumanism," in Ethics and Organizations, ed. M. Parker. London: Sage, 76-121. Woodward, J. 1965. Industrial Organization. Theory and Practice. London: Oxford University Press.
Copyright of Business Ethics Quarterly is the property of Philosophy Documentation Center and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

When Organization Theory Met Business Ethics - Toward Further Symbioses

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

When Organization Theory Met Business Ethics - Toward Further Symbioses

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

When Organization Theory Met Business Ethics: Toward Further Symbioses

Pursey P. M. A. R. Heugens and Andreas Georg Scherer

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY