JOURNAL

10.1177/1056492604268203
MANAGEMENT
/
Jacobs
AND
BUSINESS
September
INTEGRITY
/ PRAGMATISM
ETHICS
OF
2004 INQUIRY
IN

ESSAYS

A Pragmatist Approach to Integrity in Business Ethics

DAVID C. JACOBS
Hood College

Integrity is a critical concept in business ethics. Scholars and practitioners affirm its rele-
vance to the ethical fulfillment of a variety of goals in business. Integrity has been defined
in a variety of ways, sometimes emphasizing moral consistency, personal wholeness, or
honesty. Several scholars in business ethics have argued for the application of philosophi-
cal pragmatism in the construction of an ethical framework. A pragmatist interpretation
of integrity would require that individuals consider the objective social consequences
(contemporaneous and unfolding) of their actions. It would stress personal growth and
learning from experience. It would not prescribe action based on a rigid and formal code of
ethics. Nor would it sanction an ethics of expediency, driven by a narrow self-interest.
Pragmatism affirms the interdependence of means and ends and would require an itera-
tive, case-by-case inquiry as to ones moral choices and their consequences.

Keywords: pragmatism; business ethics; sweatshops; integrity

I ntegrity is a critical concept in business ethics.

Scholars and practitioners affirm its relevance
to the ethical fulfillment of a variety of goals in
business. As Becker (1998) noted, integrity has been
explored in empirical research as a predictor of job
performance, as a central trait of effective leaders, and
as a determinant of trust in organizations. Many cor-
porate codes of ethics list (but do not define) manage-
rial and employee integrity as a principal element.
Sometimes embattled leaders in business and govern-
ment are said to have the utmost integrity. (After
Enron executive Clifford Baxter committed suicide,
whistle-blower Sherron Watkins praised him for his
utmost integrity [Freedom of Information Center,
2002].) Integrity is apparently a virtue tested by fire.
Although critics are divided as to the proper sort of
management engagement with stakeholders, most
would agree that integrity should characterize stake-
holder relations.
I intend to present the case for a pragmatist
approach to integrity, focusing on the work of
philosopher John Dewey. Pragmatism is an American
movement in philosophy associated with C. S. Peirce,
William James, John Dewey, and most recently, Rich-
ard Rorty. It is characterized by the perspective that
truth is provisional and is tested in experience. A prag-
matist ethics would require that individuals consider
the objective social consequences (contemporaneous

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY, Vol. 13 No. 3, September 2004 215-223

DOI: 10.1177/1056492604268203
2004 Sage Publications
215

Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Karlstad Universitet on November 17, 2015

216 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004
and emergent) of their actions, exercise moral choice
on this basis, and continue to learn from experience.
INTEGRITY AS WHOLENESS
The Oxford English Dictionary presents two catego-
ries of definitions for integrity: the physical and the
moral. Integrity applies to the physical state of undi-
vided wholeness, whether of a united land or unbro-
ken body. Alternatively, integrity connotes an unim-
paired moral state, characterized by innocence,
sinlessness, uprightness, honesty, sincerity (Oxford
English Dictionary, 1989) The latter meaning appears to
be the relevant one in the context of business ethics.
Many writers, however, apply the spirit of the
physical meaning of integrity to the ethical context.
They suggest that an individual with integrity
respects no partitions in his or her life. They submit
that integrity requires that the individual respond to a
problem without compartmentalization, and an inte-
grated personality is likely to blend reason and emo-
tion, self-interest and social consciousness, in his or
her work.
Peck (1987) wrote:
We psychologists use a verb that is the opposite of the
verb to integrate: to compartmentalize. By it we
refer to the remarkable capacity we human beings
have to take matters that are properly related to each
other and put them in separate, airtight mental com-
partments where they dont rub up against each other
and cause us any pain. (pp. 234-235)
From this perspective, integrity requires a conscious
reconciliation of variables, in Pecks (1987) words,
that we fully experience the tension of conflicting
needs, demands, and interests, that we even be emo-
tionally torn apart by them (p. 235). Peck is not a busi-
ness ethicist; however, his emphasis on the tension of
conflicting demands seems very applicable to the
business ethics context.
INTEGRITY AS A COMPLEX OF VIRTUES
Contemporary business ethicists have applied vir-
tue ethics, social contract theory, and objectivism,
among other approaches, in the consideration of
integrity. Solomon (1992) proposed a business ethics
founded on social virtues, in which business activity is
embedded in larger social concerns, leading to the
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Karlstad Universitet on November 17, 2015
managers self-respect and recognition of social inter-
dependence. In S ol omons vi ew, i ntegri ty
incorporates a balance between institutional loyalty
and moral autonomy and is associated with moral
humility. Although principles and policies are impor-
tant, integrity also involves a pervasive sense of
social context and a sense of moral courage that means
standing up for others as well as oneself (Solomon,
1992, p. 174).
Solomon did not reduce integrity to a single dimen-
sion whether it is rational self-interest or self-sacrifice.
He classified integrity as a supervirtue or complex of
virtues, demonstrated in thought and deed. By virtue,
Solomon meant a revealed disposition to act in certain
morally appropriate ways. He found integrity to be
inextricably social and even to contain a measure of
altruism (doing for others at some personal cost)
(Solomon, 1992, p. 168, 174).
Carson (1995) noted that honesty and integrity are
linked in traditional definitions of the latter but sub-
mits that they are by no means synonymous. He
argued that an unwavering commitment to acting for
the benefit of others, standing up for those who are
under attack, loyalty to people to whom we have com-
mitted ourselves, acting honorably, and so on (p. 6)
would earn the designation of integrity. Yet none of
these is necessarily a function of honesty or truth. As
with Solomon, a measure of altruism is implied here
(Carson, 1995, p. 16).
DeGeorge (1993) agreed that integrity requires
something beyond a self-interested consistency. He
explained, Although integrity requires norms to be
self-imposed and self-accepted, they cannot be
entirely arbitrary and self-serving (DeGeorge, 1993,
p. 6). Thus, integrity implies a realm of autonomous
action guided by a moral minimum of responsibility
to others. DeGeorge sketched a model of integrity that
would suggest that managers demonstrate responsi-
bility to their employees through continuous employ-
ment and profit sharing. He submitted that multina-
tional corporations can compete with integrity by
exceeding their legal obligations, respecting human
rights, fostering human development, and transcend-
ing the moral minimum (DeGeorge, 1993, p. 189).
In their integrative social contracts theory,
Donaldson and Dunfee (1999) explained that globally
apparent hypernorms should guide the negotiation of
microsocial contracts within which business enter-
prise is formed. In Ties That Bind (Donaldson &
Dunfee, 1999), they listed integrity along with fairness
 Jacobs / PRAGMATISM AND INTEGRITY IN BUSINESS ETHICS 217

and respect for others as timeless principles that fully distinguishable from the social and in their
should shape and limit social contracting: understanding of reason as an enterprise wholly of the
self.
There exist principles so fundamental that they com-
mand our allegiance. These include the principles of
fairness, of respect for other people, and of the value of CORPORATE INTEGRITY
integrity. The challenge for businesses is to be not only
faithful to timeless principles but also reflective of
Many corporations have established ethical com-
their members cultural and religious values.
(Donaldson & Dunfee, 1999, p. viii) pliance systems that cite integrity as a fundamental
principle. Consulting firm KPMG Peat Marwick has a
division focusing on integrity management, one of
Objectivism and Integrity whose stated purposes is to ensure that systems to
deliver compliance with laws, regulations, policies
Becker (1998) and Locke and Becker (1998) sought
and codes of conduct are comprehensive (KPMG,
to formulate an objectivist definition of integrity in a
2003, n.p.). In their book, Integrity Management: A
pair of Academy of Management Review essays that have
Guide to Managing Legal and Ethical Issues in the Work-
stimulated considerable debate (see Barry & Stephens,
place, LeClair, Ferrell, and Fraedrich (1998) defined
1998; Orlitzky & Jacobs, 1998). Locke and Becker
integrity management as uncompromising imple-
(1998) argued that objectivism has the virtue of being
mentation of legal and ethical principles that are
grounded in objective reality. Leading objectivists like
themselves embodied in the strategic planning pro-
Ayn Rand (1964) and Leonard Peikoff (1991) have
cess of the firm. Paine (1994) similarly wrote of organi-
defined integrity as loyalty, in action, to a morally jus-
zational integrity, which consists of a governance sys-
tifiable code of principles and values that promotes
tem for the corporation that supports ethical
the long-term survival and well-being of individuals
standards exceeding legal requirements (p. 111).
as rational beings. Objectivism embraces capitalism as
There are perils in the managerial frame of refer-
an expression of self-interest, individual rights, and
ence that underlie many of these views of integrity,
individual reason. The Locke and Becker essays pro-
particularly the corporate form last mentioned. Some
vide an articulated argument linking objectivist meta-
larger questions are easily obscured. Solomon (1992),
physics (including the axiom that there is an external
DeGeorge (1993), and Donaldson and Dunfee (1999)
reality), epistemology (individual reason is the only
stressed autonomous choice by managers. The auton-
valid source of knowledge), and ethics (founded on
omous choices of managers, however modulated,
rational self-interest).
ordinarily presuppose that the enterprise is a higher
Objectivist integrity is an interesting contrast to the
end to which managerial choices are means.
other interpretations advanced above because it
Although corporate or organizational integrity
rejects the social, possibly altruistic, dimension of
may impose significant moral constraints on the
integrity. In most of the other views, integrity is funda-
behavior of corporate officers and employees, it still
mentally social in that it demands certain qualities of
takes the enterprise as a given. It potentially compart-
social relations. DeGeorge (1993), Solomon (1992),
mentalizes a corporate self limited in moral reach.
Carson (1995), and Donaldson and Dunfee (1999)
There are likely to be corporate practices that escape
linked integrity with an altruism that exceeds a calcu-
sufficient scrutiny from within such a system. Note
lated and strategic benevolence. Objectivists tend to
the parallel with ombuds procedures that simulate but
dismiss altruism as a form of capitulation to others
do not guarantee independence from the official
and find human relations better understood as con-
hierarchy.
tracts among individuals. Within the objectivist
There also is confusion in the assumption that the
framework, individuals may choose to practice a lim-
corporation is an entity that can embrace integrity.
ited benevolence toward others in accord with
Despite the bizarre legal conception of the corporation
rational self-interest.
as a legal person with unlimited life, it is not a human
Objectivism ultimately fails as a philosophical basis
actor. When managers formulate an integrity program
for integrity because of its fundamentally flawed con-
and instruct subordinates to comply, they may pre-
ception of human nature. Objectivists err in their
empt the deliberations among employees that
unfounded concept of the individual as prior to and

Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Karlstad Universitet on November 17, 2015

218 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004
advance integrity. Integrity applies best to individuals
and groups rather than organizations.
Ethics codes do not themselves constitute or imple-
ment integrity. They are products of prior decisions
that may have embodied integrity; however, they are
mere mechanisms without continued socially con-
scious judgment by living people.
Donaldson and Dunfees (1999) integrative social
contracts theory leaves hypernorms and concepts
such as integrity largely undefined. Their fictional
contracting process trivializes the role of consent in
justifying existing business systems, even if it belongs
to a noble philosophical tradition. The individuals
right of exit and dissent is close to a hollow one when it
comes to inertial business practice as captured in
microsocial norms. The opportunity to change jobs or
leave the country does not ensure that existing prac-
tices have the consent of subordinates. Moral free space,
defined as a realm of discretion in which individuals
and groups negotiate the context and outlines of busi-
ness enterprise, is more fiction than reality for
employees.
A defensible approach to integrity in business eth-
ics should simultaneously provide practical guidance
to managers as well as reach unethical practices
embedded in the corporation and management hier-
archy. The corporate structure should not be accepted
as given if it generates an unethical result as the man-
ager conducts business as usual. The pragmatism of
John Dewey may provide a fruitful approach.
PRAGMATISM AND BUSINESS ETHICS
Several scholars have suggested that philosophical
pragmatism would be an appropriate framework for
business ethics. For example, Margolis (1998) (sec-
onded by Frederick, 2000) wrote: To foster ethical
conduct that is possible, in real business organiza-
tions, our task is to help people in those organizations
figure out how to do better. It is a call for Deweyan
meliorism (p. 414).
Buchholz and Rosenthal (1997) argued that prag-
matism offers a fruitful way to view the corporation
and its relationship to society. They dispute the rele-
vance of traditional economic models based on
atomistic individualism. They wrote:
Pragmatic philosophy based on different assump-
tions opens up the possibility of developing an alter-
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Karlstad Universitet on November 17, 2015
native theory of the firm in society that fuses the mar-
ket and public policy, that overcomes the traditional
dichotomies between business and government, eco-
nomic and social, public and private. (Buchholz &
Rosenthal, 1997, p. 199)
Pragmatist Metaphysics
Pragmatism rests on the assumption that there is a
larger world outside the self. Each individual strives
to understand the surrounding world. Dewey rejected
any notion of a transcendent reality removed from
experience or visible only to pure reason. He denied
any mind/body dichotomy and argued instead that
mind and body are equally manifestations of nature.
The existence of a shared reality places individual
actors on a common plane in which communication
and cooperation (and ultimately business practice) are
possible (Dewey, 1958, p. 74).
Pragmatist Epistemology
According to Dewey and fellow pragmatists Peirce
and James, truth cannot be absolute; it is always provi-
sional and instrumental. It is a useful view of the
world. A truth may be superseded when a new truth is
better validated by experience. Science represents an
experimental method from which to infer causal rela-
tionships among external events and to develop an
understanding of the environment. Humans formu-
late interpretations of these causal relationships
(Wicks & Freeman, 1998, p. 126).
Deweyan pragmatism finds science to be within the
capacity of every individual. Although professional
scientists practice experimentation with rigor, ordi-
nary individuals learn from experiments as well. Chil-
dren cannot learn to speak or walk without trying
sounds and exploring movement.
Pragmatism overcomes the traditional dichotomy
between the individual and society, stressing the indi-
viduals development within rather than independ-
ence from society. No one can express himself or her-
self and communicate ideas to others without
reference to the groups in which his or her identity has
evolved, arising from some mixture of social experi-
ences. Ones very name is a blend of familial, cultural,
and religious elements that define the individual in
social terms. Ones ideas result from interaction with
social stimuli and depend on language learned from
the community.
 Jacobs / PRAGMATISM AND INTEGRITY IN BUSINESS ETHICS
Pragmatism rejects the positivist dichotomy
between describing and prescribing and therefore
fails to quarantine and marginalize ethics as is the case
with positivistic philosophies. Dewey (1920) wrote:
When all is said and done in criticism of present
social deficiencies, one may well wonder whether the
root difficulty does not lie in the separation of natural
and moral science (p. 173).
Pragmatist Ethics
Dewey argued that experience is at the root of eth-
ics. He proposed a pragmatic ethical science based on
the testing of hypotheses. Individuals construct hypo-
thetical judgments about their prospective behaviors.
They anticipate how the proposed behaviors may
interact with the social and physical environment and
determine their own character. Experience provides a
sequence of tests. Individuals practice moral agency,
choosing between inconsistent paths and deliberating
in anticipation of consequences.
Dewey rejected any conception of so-called duty as
inhering in the individual; duty is to be experientially
and socially determined. He disputed the underlying
logic of Kants categorical imperative: that new moral
situations can be judged according to a preformed set
of rules. Dewey found merit in the utilitarians focus
on consequences but challenged the mechanical and
quantitative manner in which Bentham assessed con-
sequences (through counting units of happiness). He
conceded that pleasure often accompanies certain
social outcomes but argued that this reflects an under-
lying valuation of these outcomes and does not vali-
date Benthams choice of pleasure as the measure of
action.
Deweys approach to ethics calls for careful and
deliberate case-by-case analysis. One does, however,
learn from this exercise, and there are economies of
effort; that is, the individual can consider a situation
and place it in an instructive context that suggests a
possible response. Sometimes one chooses an inap-
propriate analogy and learns from the consequences.
In the years since the war in Vietnam, foreign policy
debate in the United States has revolved around the
question of whether a given crisis more resembled
World War II or Vietnam because the proper analogy
would suggest the military or diplomatic character of
the U.S. response.
Pragmatism does not require the use of a specific
algorithm for the assessment of experience and conse-
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Karlstad Universitet on November 17, 2015
219
quences. Rather, it calls for judgment. Moreover, social
consequences extend to social and institutional details
of differentiated impacts. Dewey inquired as to the
specific circumstances of peoples lives, hesitating to
generalize about a generic public.
Dewey (1920) particularly deplored ends justify
the means arguments. He dismissed the notion that
any end could be so elevated that destructive means
would be tolerated: But now the doctrine of higher
ends gives aid, comfort and support to every socially
isolated and socially irresponsible scholar, specialist,
esthete and religionist (Dewey, 1920, p. 172).
In his description of a moral situation, Dewey (1920)
provided a sketch of decision making according to a
pragmatist ethic:
A moral situation is one in which judgment and choice
are required antecedently to overt action. The practi-
cal meaning of the situationthat is to say the action
needed to satisfy itis not self-evident. It has to be
searched for. There are conflicting desires and alter-
nate apparent goods. What is needed is to find the
right course of action, the right good. Hence, inquiry is
exacted: observation of the detailed makeup of the sit-
uation; analysis into its diverse factors; clarification of
what is obscure; discounting of the more insistent and
vivid traits; tracing the consequences of the various
modes of action that suggest themselves; regarding
the decision reached as hypothetical and tentative
until the anticipated or supposed consequences that
led to its adoption have been squared with actual con-
sequences. This inquiry is intelligence. (Dewey, 1920,
pp. 163-164)
Superficially, this sketch of moral choice may resem-
ble rational decision making as codified by Simon
(1979). In reality, Deweys approach is different
because it addresses a moral situation, not a technical
problem, because it legitimates emotions, and because
it is iterative.
A contemporary problem, the continuing crisis
with Iraq, may better illustrate pragmatist ethics. The
Bush administrations deliberations about Iraq have
seemed devoid of pragmatist insights. Pragmatism
would direct that the judgment to go to war and other
policy decisions be based on an assessment of likely
consequences. (A pragmatist analysis of the Iraqi situ-
ation would consist of a set of carefully constructed
hypothetical judgments involving alternative courses
of action, reflecting new developments in each itera-
tion.) It now appears that the Bush administration
operated on the basis of a priori judgments as to the
virtue of U.S. military intervention and the preroga-
220 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004
tives of U.S. power and that there was little evaluation
of alternative scenarios. Although the consequences
of any military intervention or other initiative cannot
be fully predicted, they must be considered without
rigid preconceptions, whether pacifist or militarist.
Pragmatism may remind one of contingency theory
in management scholarship (particularly Folletts
variety, see Wren & Greenwood, 1998, pp. 194-198);
however, the latter departs in essential ways from
Deweyan pragmatism. Contingency theories recom-
mend specific management approaches that are in
accord with the details of a given organizational real-
ity (what Follett called the law of the situation);
however, the framework is narrowly managerial.
Contingency theory may justify democratic or dictato-
rial styles of management. Vecchio (1988) argued, If
you are in charge of a band of fascists, your subordi-
nates may well expect and desire that you rule with an
iron fist (p. 19).
On the other hand, pragmatism requires a broader
consciousness of social consequences and thus would
not provide provisional approval for dictatorial
behavior. Through a pragmatist lens, integrity
extends the sweep of problem solving, so that one
seeks the solution to larger problems that afflict soci-
ety, not merely solutions for ones immediate prob-
lems or those of the organization.
Deweys focus on emergent experience (and social
consequences) requires attention to the conditions of
others and invites their perspectives even if they are
low in station. Dewey (1939) wrote: The individuals
of the submerged mass may not be very wise. But
there is one thing they are wiser about than anybody
else can be, and that is where the shoe pinches, the
troubles they suffer from (p. 401).
Thus, Deweys pragmatism requires a larger view
of the social reality including the condition of the least
well off and attention to their voices. This has much in
common with various formulations of stakeholder
theory. What distinguishes the pragmatist approach is
the critical approach to office and organization as
means not ends in themselves. The pragmatist avoids
ethical compartmentalization as he or she works
within the organization, seeking to improve the social
reality (from which complete separation is never
possible for the individual).
The individual and the collective are often con-
flated in the consideration of business. The corpora-
tion is a collective instrument and yet is treated in the
law as a person and is sometimes accorded the person-
ality of an individual. Pragmatism is particularly
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Karlstad Universitet on November 17, 2015
helpful in its illumination of the false view of business
as an extension of the individual. It should be noted
that pragmatism is equally hostile to an individualism
that denies social context and a socialist or statist phi-
losophy that denies all claims of the individual.
Growth
Dewey emphasized personal change and develop-
ment in his pragmatist philosophy. He believed that
engagement with the world of experience and moral
decision necessarily alters the individual.
The choice at stake in a moral deliberation or valua-
tion is worth of this and that kind of character and dis-
position. . . . In committing oneself to a particular
course, a person gives a lasting set to his own being.
Consequently, it is proper to say that in picking this
object rather than that, one is in reality choosing what
kind of person or self one is going to be. (Dewey, 1985,
p. 274, 287)
In short, the thing actually at stake in any serious
deliberation is not difference of quantity, but what
kind of person one is to become, what sort of self is in
the making, what kind of a world is making. (Dewey,
1983, p. 150)
Thus, we can construct a pragmatist approach to
integrity. Pragmatist ethics require that individuals
consider the objective social consequences (immedi-
ate and emergent) of their actions. It would stress per-
sonal growth, learning from experience, and an inte-
grated personality. Pragmatist integrity is the subset
of pragmatist ethics that applies to the manager or
leader who seeks to behave ethically but faces the
challenges of office. This is an arbitrary classification.
Dewey would deny that ethics applies in different
ways to managers and workers. However, within the
universe of ethics, a subset concerns managerial deci-
sions; for the sake of this inquiry, integrity is focused
on this specialized subset. Pragmatist integrity allows
a manager to be in the business world but not of it, as
he or she explores the world of social consequences
conscious of but unblinded by his or her position.
PRAGMATIST INTEGRITY
AND BUSINESS PRACTICE
What would Deweyan integrity mean for business
practice? Managers would seek to be less myopic
about the consequences of their decisions. For exam-
ple, they would not merely assert that downsizing sat-
 Jacobs / PRAGMATISM AND INTEGRITY IN BUSINESS ETHICS
isfies the rigors of the marketplace. They would exer-
cise restraint, consult with employees, and consider
alternatives. They would examine the evidence as to
the experience and consequences of downsizing as an
enterprise strategy. Pragmatist integrity departs from
so-called enlightened self-interest; the former directs
the manager to consider the underlying problems of
the enterprise and economy. A pragmatist regards an
organization as a means to human ends, not as a pos-
session to be defended. He would consider coordi-
nated strategies with government and nonprofit
groups to lessen the pain of reorganizing.
Managers would be more aware of the interdepen-
dence of means and ends. They would not justify low
wages and poor working conditions by their firms
need to be competitive and profitable. The so-called
sweatshop (with wages low relative to basic needs
and hours of work an obstacle to family obligations)
would not be tolerated as a legitimate means to the
end of organizational competitiveness. Firm competi-
tiveness would be an intermediate end, and
approaches to it would be compared with regard to
social consequences.
Objectivists and utilitarians whose conception of
integrity is individualistic in character would not be
inclined to perceive the problem of worker exploita-
tion in sweatshops. The fact of individual employ-
ment in a workshop under assumed conditions of free
choice would ensure them that the employment rela-
tionship satisfies the rational self-interests of the par-
ties. However, the physical and sexual abuse of
employees and the military-style security alleged to
characterize sweatshops challenge the assumption of
a workplace free from coercion. Pragmatism would
require that employment bargains be examined with
respect to the objective conditions of the workers. An
employer who contracts with suppliers who deny
their employees reasonable expectations of wages
exceeding subsistence levels and a healthy and safe
working environment fails to demonstrate integrity.
Wages and the cost of living in a community can be
compared to establish whether wages are adequate.
Although this is not an entirely mechanical exercise,
and it requires judgments, it is far cry from consider-
ing integrity as a matter of process in contracting.
The pragmatist manager would consider the social
consequences of multinational siting of suppliers. U.S.
disinvestment from domestic manufacturing has
reduced the employment base of many American cit-
ies and regions. U.S. investment in production facili-
ties abroad enhances economic opportunities for
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Karlstad Universitet on November 17, 2015
221
those thereby employed; however, there are more
humane alternatives to sweatshops. A reasonable pre-
requisite for U.S. firms contracts with suppliers in
developing nations would be that the consequences
and opportunity costs for workers in both nations be
jointly considered. There would be no assumption
that market transactions necessarily leave everyone
better off.
Pragmatist ethics do not dictate the imposition of
any one nations institutions or practices on another.
Rather, they demand inquiry as to the local and global
effects of human decisions. No one, regardless of his
or her position or national identity, is exempt from this
responsibility. In the many instances of injustice in the
world of multinational business, probably local and
foreign managers are implicated. (For example, the
1985 Bhopal chemical disaster could not have hap-
pened without lax safety standards at the local and
corporate levels.) Obversely, the correction of injustice
will require the collaboration of managers (among
others) across national borders.
Pragmatist integrity would alter management
responses to union organizing. There is considerable
evidence of employee interest in union representa-
tion. Freeman and Rogers (1999) found that most
unorganized workers would like some form of repre-
sentation with independence from management.
Freeman and Medoff (1984) observed a productivity
advantage in unionized enterprises. Other economists
have noted that unions win wage-and-benefit
increases desired by employees. These factors should
militate against a reflexive antiunion stance among
managers. Managers practicing pragmatist integrity
would not seek to suppress unionism. If employees
were to provide authoritative evidence of their sup-
port for unionization (so-called card-check), their
managers would be willing to recognize the relevant
unions.
Of course, managers must maintain the profitabil-
ity of their firms. This cannot, however, be a higher
end that justifies poor treatment of employees. Man-
agers ideally should seek the input of their employees
in the selection of strategies that maintain profitability
and adequate labor standards.
Pragmatist Exemplars
Filene (1924), the founder of Filenes Department
Store and the Twentieth Century Fund, described his
notion of proper business leadership in this way:
222 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004
The sort of business man who broadly speaking, is the
opposite of the reactionary, the sort of business man
who faces fresh problems with a fresh mind, who is
more interested in creating a better order of things
than in defending the existing order of things, who
realizes that a private business is a public trust, and
who has a greater reverence for scientific method than
for the traditions and majority opinion of his class.
(pp. 284-285)
Filene endured much criticism from fellow busi-
ness executives for his sharing of power within his
store with his workers and his increasing sympathy
for the labor movement. He was ultimately removed
from his position at Filenes as a result of his demo-
cratic experimentation. In his willingness to experi-
ment in the leadership of his business while consider-
ing the consequences for workers and the community,
in his perseverance in spite of ridicule from main-
stream business leaders, Filene demonstrated integ-
rity according to a pragmatist definition.
Hawken, a founder of outdoor furniture retailer
Smith and Hawken, has demonstrated a similar
approach to business leadership in his inquiry as to
the environmental consequences of business deci-
sions. His goal has been to devise means for enter-
prises to incorporate considerations of environmental
impact, and his view extends from the minutia of busi-
ness practice to global developments in the environ-
ment. Hawkens natural capitalism would repro-
duce natural processes by converting waste output
into useful inputs for production, thereby minimizing
environmental externalities (Hawken, Lovins, &
Lovins, 1999). Hawken struggled within his own
enterprise, Smith and Hawken, for policies with
favorable environmental consequences, and now has
undertaken a broader advocacy role. He has demon-
strated integrity in his efforts to lead business toward
a comprehensive settlement with the environment. He
recognizes that this requires innovative management
and institution building.
Filene and Hawken combined business leadership
with community initiatives, with the construction of
forums for social dialog and experimentation. Filene
founded the Twentieth Century Fund to support
research on social problem solving. Hawken has been
active with the Global Business Network and Natural
Step, two international organizations committed to
advancing environmentally sound management.
Both found particular offices and organizations limit-
ing with respect to their pragmatist sensibilities.
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Karlstad Universitet on November 17, 2015
Pragmatist integrity is a demanding but not impos-
sible standard. The experiences of Filene and Hawken
provide some guidance as to the struggle required to
bring pragmatist integrity to business. Although they
attained prosperity as individuals, their critical stance
toward business as usual brought them into conflict
with many of their colleagues. Their achievements are
evident in a pattern of experimentation that tran-
scends the individual enterprise. Given the global
economy, in which corporate leaders continue to
exhibit insularity and insensitivity as to the treatment
of stakeholders in distant realms, Filene and Hawken
provided some indication of another way.
REFERENCES
Barry, B., & Stephens, C. U. (1998). Objections to an
objectivist approach to integrity. Academy of Management
Review, 23(1), 162-169.
Becker, T. E. (1998). Integrity in organizations: Beyond hon-
esty and conscientiousness. Academy of Management
Review, 23(1), 154-161.
Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (1997, April). Business
and society: Whats in a name. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 5(2), 180-201.
Carson, A. S. (1995, Winter). The nature of a moral business
person. Review of Business, 17(2), 16-22.
DeGeorge, R. (1993). Competing with integrity in international
business. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York:
Henry Holt.
Dewey, J. (1939). The democratic form. In J. Ratner & E. A.
Post (Eds.), Intelligence in the modern world (pp. 400-404).
New York: Random House.
Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover.
Dewey, J. (1983). Human nature and conduct. In J. A.
Boydston (Ed.), The middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 14,
pp. 146-153). Carbondale and Edwardsville: University
of Southern Illinois Press.
Dewey, J. (1985). Ethics. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later
works, 1925-1853 (Vol. 7, pp. 262-310). Carbondale and
Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. (1999). Ties that bind: A social con-
tracts approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Filene, E. A. (1924). The way out: A forecast of coming changes in
American business and industry. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, Page.
Frederick, W. (2000). Pragmatism, nature, and norms. Busi-
ness and Society Review, 105(4), 467-479.
Freedom of Information Center. (2002). Enron suicide note dis-
closed. Retrieved September 8, 2003 , from http://foi.mis-
souri.edu/enronandetal/suicidenote.html
Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. (1984). What do unions do? New
York: Basic Books.
 Jacobs / PRAGMATISM AND INTEGRITY IN BUSINESS ETHICS
Freeman, R. B., & Rogers, J. (1999). What workers want. Ithaca,
NY: ILR Press.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, H. (1999). Natural capital-
ism: Creating the next industrial revolution. New York: Lit-
tle, Brown.
KPMG. (2003). KPMG Advisory services. Retrieved September
2, 2003, from www.kpmg.co.uk/kpmg/uk/services/
audit/SUSTAIN/advisory.cfm
LeClair, D. C., Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. P. (1998). Integrity
management: A guide to managing legal and ethical issues in
the workplace. Tampa, FL: University of Tampa Press.
Locke, E. E., & Becker, T. E. (1998). Rebuttal to a subjectivist
critique of an objectivist approach to integrity in organi-
zations. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 170-175.
Margolis, J. (1998, July). Psychological pragmatism and the
imperative of aims: A new approach for business ethics.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 409-430.
Orlitzky, M., & Jacobs, D. (1998). A candid and modest pro-
posal: The brave new world of objectivism. Academy of
Management Review, 23, 656-658.
Oxford English Dictionary. (1989). Integrity. Retrieved Sep-
tember 8, 2003, from http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/
display/00118587?keytype=ref&ijkey=4mZl6edyr1Wz2
Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for organizational integrity. Har-
vard Business Review, 72(2), 106-117.
Peck, M. S. (1987). The different drum: Community making and
peace. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Downloaded from jmi.sagepub.com at Karlstad Universitet on November 17, 2015
223
Peikoff, L. (1991). Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand.
New York: Meridian.
Rand, A. (1964). The virtue of selfishness: A new concept of ego-
ism. New York: Signet.
Simon, H. (1979). Rational decision making in business orga-
nizations. American Economic Review, 69(4), 493.
Solomon, R. C. (1992). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and
integrity in business. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vecchio, R. P. (1988). Organizational behavior. Chicago:
Dryden Press.
Wicks, T., & Freeman, E. R. (1998). Organization studies and
the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and
the search for ethics. Organization Science, 9(2), 123-140.
Wren, D. A., & Greenwood, R. G. (1998). Management innova-
tors: The people and ideas that have shaped modern business.
New York: Oxford University Press.
DAVID C. JACOBS is a professor of management at Hood College in
Frederick, Maryland. He previously taught at Kansas State University, the
University of Michigan-Flint, and American University. Jacobs is author
of Collective Bargaining as an Instrument of Social Change and Busi-
ness and the Power Structure in America as well as coauthor, with Joel
Yudken, of The Internet, Organizational Change, and Labor. He has
written several essays about altruism and self-interest as they relate to
union and business decision making in academic and professional journals.