McMahon on Workplace Democracy

This paper offers a sympathetic critique of Christopher McMahon’s Authority and Democracy: A General Theory of Government and Management. Although I find fault with some of his arguments, my goal is not to show that these arguments are irreparable, but to highlight issues that deserve further consideration. After defining some terms, first, I raise an objection to McMahon’s rejection of the moral unity of management (MUM) thesis. Second, I draw attention to his “moralization” of the workplace, and examine the role it plays in his arguments about the relative strengths of the different kinds of authority. Third, I raise questions about his reliance on an analogy between states and firms. I suggest that states and firms are in some ways more alike, but in other ways less alike, than he allows.     

Managerial Authority as Political Authority: A Retrospective Examination of Christopher McMahon’s Authority and Democracy

An introduction to the March, 2005 symposium “The Political Theory of Organizations: A Retrospective Examination of Christopher McMahon’s Authority and Democracy” held in San Francisco as part of the Society for Business Ethics Group Meeting at the Pacific Division Meetings of the American Philosophical Association. Jeffery Smith is an Assistant Professor and founding Director of the Banta Center for Business, Ethics and Society at the University of Redlands. His current research focuses on communicative ethics and the moral foundations of collaborative decision-making within economic organizations. He is also interested in the role of principles in moral decision-making and the extent to which principled decisions can be made in organizational contexts. Professor Smith’s writings have appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics: A European Review, Southern Journal of Philosophy and in other journals. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in 2000.     

Should collective bargaining and labor relations be less adversarial?

In this paper I argue that the poker analogy is unsuitable as a model for collective bargaining negotiations. Using the poker game analogy is imprudent, its use undermines trust and ignores the cooperative features of business, and its use fails to take into account the values of dignity and fairness which should characterize labor-management negotiations. I propose and defend a model of ideal family decision-making as a superior model to the poker game. Norman E. Bowie is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Delaware. He presently holds a post as Director of the Center for the Study of Values. He previously was Executive Secretary of the American Philosophical Association. Norman E. Bowie's most important publications are: Business Ethics, Prentice-Hall, 1982 (author); Ethics, Public Policy and Criminal Justice, Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain Publishers, 1982 (co-editor); Ethical Theory in the Last Quarter of the 20th Century, Hackett Publishing, 1983 (editor); Ethical Theory and Business, 1st ed., 1979, 2nd ed., 1983, Prentice-Hall (co-editor); The Individual and the Political Order: An Introduction to Social and Political Philosophy, Prentice-Hall, 1977 (co-author); Towards a New Theory of Distributive Justice, University of Massachusetts Press, 1971 (author). He published numerous articles in Business and Applied Ethics.     

The status of business ethics: Past and future

Business ethics, which grew out of religion's interest in ethics in business and management education's concern with social issues, has become an interdisciplinary academic field. Thus far it has centered on teaching undergraduates. The easy work has now been done and the field has reached a plateau. To develop further it requires development on the MBA level, high quality research on new questions, positive models, better interdisciplinary integration, and attention to international business. Ultimately the field will stand or fall on the quality of research those in it produce. Richard T. De George, University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kansas is the author or editor of fifteen books, including Ethics, Free Enterprise and Public Policy; Business Ethics, 2nd ed.; and The Nature and Limits of Authority.     

The Principle of Moral Projection: A reply to Professor Ranken

This article responds to two criticisms by Professor Nani Ranken of the Principle of Moral Projection in business ethics. In the process it enlarges upon our understanding of the moral agenda of management and the corporation as a participant in ethical transactions. Kenneth E. Goodpaster is Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Business Administration at Harvard University. He has published articles in a wide variety of journals, including the Journal of Philosophy, Ethics, Environmental Ethics, the Journal of Business Ethics, Thought, and the Harvard Business Review. He has also edited or authored five books: Perspectives on Morality: Essays of William Frankena (1976) Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century (1979) Regulation, Values and the Public Interest (1980) Ethics in Management (1984) and Policies and Persons: A Casebook in Business Ethics (1985). Work in progress includes a monograph on management and moral philosophy (1987).     

Psychometric Properties of the Reidenbach–Robin Multidimensional Ethics Scale

The factor structure of the Multidimensional Ethics Scale (MES; Reidenbach and Robin: 1988, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 871–879; 1990, Journal of Business Ethics 9, 639–653) was examined for the 8-item short form (N = 328) and the original 30-item pool (N = 260). The objectives of the study were: to verify the dimensionality of the MES; to increase the amount of true cross-scenario variance through the use of 18 scenarios varying in moral intensity (Jones: 1991, Academy of Management Review 16, 366–395); and, to examine the items for measurement precision using item-response theory (IRT) methods. Results of confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis failed to conclusively support the hypothesized 3- (short form) or 5-factor (long form) structure; both instruments were instead dominated by a general factor. Item response theory analyses using Samejima’s (1969, Psychometrika Monograph Supplement 34, (4, Pt. 2)) graded response model revealed that many items in the 30-item pool performed very well, and suggested that a different collection of items be used to form a short-form version of the MES. Our proposed 10-item instrument includes more discriminating items than the 8-item version, and has the added advantage of including two items from each of the five ethical philosophies represented in the original 30-item pool. Joan M. McMahon is an Assistant Professor of Management in the School of Business at Christopher Newport University, teaching courses in Organizational Behavior, Leadership, and Human Resources. She has a B.A. in Speech from the State University of New York, College at Oneonta; an M.Ed. In Early Childhood Education from James Madison University; and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Robert J. Harvey is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He has a B.A. in Psychology and an M.A. in Experimental Psychology from the University of Missouri at Kansas City, and a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from Ohio State University. Dr. Harvey has authored a number of articles in the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal of Personality Assessment, Personnel Psychology, and others. He is the author of the chapter on job analysis in the Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.     

Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework

Modern society is challenged by a loss of efficiency in national governance systems values, and lifestyles. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) discourse builds upon a conception of organizational legitimacy that does not appropriately reflect these changes. The problems arise from the a-political role of the corporation in the concepts of cognitive and pragmatic legitimacy, which are based on compliance to national law and on relatively homogeneous and stable societal expectations on the one hand and widely accepted rhetoric assuming that all members of society benefit from capitalist production on the other. We therefore propose a fundamental shift to moral legitimacy, from an output and power oriented approach to an input related and discursive concept of legitimacy. This shift creates a new basis of legitimacy and involves organizations in processes of active justification vis-à-vis society rather than simply responding to the demands of powerful groups. We consider this a step towards the politicization of the corporation and attempt to re-embed the debate on corporate legitimacy into its broader context of political theory, while reflecting the recent turn from a liberal to a deliberative concept of democracy.Prof. Dr. Guido Palazzo is Assistant Professor for Business Ethics at the University of Lausanne (Switzerland). He graduated in Business Administration at the University of Bamberg (Germany) and earned his PhD in Political Philosophy (1999) from the University of Marburg (Germany). His research interests are in Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Branding, Democratic Theory and Organizational Ethics.Prof. Dr. Andreas Georg Scherer is director of the Institute for Organization and Administrative Science (IOU) and holds the Chair for Foundations of Business Administration and Theories of the Firm at the University of Zurich (Switzerland). He has published six books. His work has appeared in Academy of Management Review, Advances in Strategic Management, Business Ethics Quarterly, Journal of Business Ethics, M@n@gement, Management International Review, Organization, organization Studies, and in numerous volumes and German journals. Dr. Scherer is member of the editorial boards of Business Ethics Quarterly, Organization, and Organization Studies.     

Regulation,deregulation, self-regulation: The case of engineers in Ontario

Against a wider background of rationales for deregulation within a modern economy, and as an exercise of subjecting a theory to the hard discipline of a particular case, a detailed analysis is given of a recent proposal for a form of deregulation (the industrial exemption) for engineering in Ontario. The proposal of the Staff Study of the Professional Organizations Committee set up by the Ontario Government is analyzed in terms of its Posnerian foundations, and is critized theoretically, empirically and normatively. Attention is drawn to two wider issues: the protection by self-regulating professionals of third parties against negative externalities, and the adverse effects of the proletarianization of professionals in large organizations. J. T. Stevenson is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto where he teaches Ethics and Engineering and he is co-chairman of the Occupational Ethics Group. An important publication is Standards and Support Stystems for Whistle-Blowers, Engineering Dimensions, 1982.An earlier version of this paper was presented to a conference, Economics, Philosophy and Justice, at University of Waterloo, May 1983. I am indebted to Lawrence Haworth, University of Waterloo, for helpful criticisms. A shorter version was presented to a conference sponsored by the Society for Business Ethics at de Paul University, Chicago, July 1983. I thank Conrad Brunk, Conrad Grebel College, Waterloo for further helpful comments. The paper draws primarily on two documents: (a) Micheal J. Treblicock, Carolyn J. Tuohy and Alan D. Wolfson, Professional Regulation: A Staff Study of Accountancy, Architecture, Engineering and Law, prepared for The Professional Organizations Committee, Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, 1979. (Hereafter referred to as POC Staff); (b) H. Allen Leal, J. Alex Corry, J. Stefan Dupré, The Report of the Professional Organizations Committee, Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, 1980. (Hereafter referred to as POC Report). The first work brings together material form sixteen staff working papers, to which I have had access through the courtesy of Professor John Swan, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. I have also made use of The Professions and Public Policy ed. by Philip Slayton and Michael J. Treblicock, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978 and, for American perspectives, Regulating the Professions, ed. by Roger D. Blair and Stephen Rubin, Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company, 1980.     

Ethics in business education: Working toward a meaningful reciprocity

This paper outlines and argues against some criticisms of business ethics education. It maintains that these criticisms have been put forward due to a misunderstanding of the nature of business and/or ethics. Business ethics seeks a meaningful reciprocity among economic, social and moral concerns. This demands that business organizations autonomously develop ethical goals from within, which in turn demands a reciprocity between ethical theory and practical experience. Working toward such a reciprocity, the ultimate goal of business ethics education is a moral business point of view through which one can live with integrity and fulfillment.To everyone who proposes to have a good career, moral philosophy is indispensible. Cicero, De Officiis, 44BC W. Michael Hoffman is Chair and Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Director at the Center for Business Ethics, Bentley College, Waltham, MA. He has received the following Grants: Council for Philosophical Studies, NEH Fellow, NDEA Fellow, Matchette. His most important publications are: Kant's Theory of Freedom: A Metaphysical Inquiry (UPA, 1979); Proceedings of the National Conferences on Business Ethics, 5 volumes (1977–1984); Business Ethics (McGraw-Hill, 1984) and articles in Journal of Business Ethics, Idealistic Studies, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Journal of Thought, The Journal for Critical Analysis, and The Southern Journal of Philosophy.Paper presented at the 16th Conference on Value Inquiry, entitled: Ethics and the Market Place: An Exercise in Bridge-Building or On the Slopes of the Interface.     

An Examination of the Structure of Executive Compensation and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Canadian Investigation

We explore the extent to which Boards use executive compensation to incite firms to act in accordance with social and environmental objectives (e.g., Johnson, R. and D. Greening: 1999, Academy of Management Journal 42(5), 564–578 ; Kane, E. J.: 2002, Journal of Banking and Finance 26, 1919–1933.). We examine the association between executive compensation and corporate social responsibility (CSR) for 77 Canadian firms using three key components of executives’ compensation structure: salary, bonus, and stock options. Similar to prior research (McGuire, J., S. Dow and K. Argheyd: 2003, Journal of Business Ethics 45(4), 341–359), we measure three different aspects of CSR, which include Total CSR as well as CSR Strengths and CSR Weaknesses. CSR Strengths and CSR Weaknesses capture the positive and negative aspects of CSR, respectively. We find significant positive relationships between: (1) Salary and CSR Weaknesses, (2) Bonus and CSR Strengths, (3) Stock Options and Total CSR; and (4) Stock Options and CSR Strengths. Our findings suggest the importance of the structure of executive compensation in encouraging socially responsible actions, particularly for larger Canadian firms. This in turn suggests that executive compensation can be an effective tool in aligning executives’ welfare with that of the “common good”, which results in more socially responsible firms (Bebchuk, L., J. Fried and D. Walker: 2002, The University of Chicago Law Review 69, 751–846; Zalewski, D.: 2003, Journal of Economic Issues 37(2), 503–509). In addition, our findings suggest the importance of institutional context in influencing the association between executive compensation and CSR. Further implications for practice and research are discussed.Lois. Mahoney is an Assistant Professor at Eastern Michigan University. Her research is focused in the areas of ethics and accounting information systems. She has published in ethics and accounting journals including Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly, Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, Information and Organization. Dr. Mahoney has received several research awards, including Best Paper award at the Seventh Symposium on Ethics Research in Accounting. Dr. Mahoney is also actively involved in the American Accounting Association.Linda Thorn is an Associate Professor at York University in Toronto Ontario. Her research focuses on ethical decision making, the ethics of accountants and accounting students and ethical aspects of accounting information. She has published in ethics and accounting journal including among others, Business Ethics Quarterly, Journal of Business Ethics, Contemporary Accounting Research, Behavioral Research in Accounting and Audit: A Journal of Practice in Theory.     

A defense of employee rights

Recent trends in business ethics along with growing attacks upon unions, suggest that employee rights will be a major social concern for business managers during the next decade. However, in most of the discussions of employee rights to date, the very meaning and legitimacy of such rights are often uncritically taken for granted. In this paper, we develop an account of employee rights and defend this conception against what we take to be the strongest in-principle objections to it. Joseph R. Des Jardins is Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy of Villanova University. He is co-editor, with John McCall, ofContemporary Issues in Business Ethics (1984) and An Introduction to Ethics (forthcoming, both published by Wadsworth. John J. McCall is Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy of St. Joseph's University and formerly at Iowa State University.     

Salesperson Perceptions of Ethical Behaviors: Their Influence on Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions

In the academic world, research has indicated that “good ethics is good business.” Such research seems to indicate that firms, which emphasize ethical values and social responsibilities, tend to be more profitable than others. Generally, the profitability is credited to the firm’s positive relationships with its customers, reduced costs of attempting to rebuild a tarnished image, ease of attracting capital, etc. The research conducted in this study evaluated salespeople’s perceptions of the ethics of businesses in general, their employer’s ethics, their attitudes as consumers, and the relationships existing between these perceptions and the sale force’s job satisfaction and turnover intentions. The results show a positive relationship existing between salesperson perceptions of business ethics, his/her employer’s ethics, consumer attitudes, and the salesperson’s job satisfaction and reduced turnover intentions. Charles E. Pettijohn (D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University) is a professor of marketing in the College of Business Administration at Missouri State University. He is also co-editor of the Marketing Management Journal. His research has appeared in the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, the Journal of Businesss Ethics, Marketing Management Journal, Psychology and Marketing, and the Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. At Missouri State University, his primary teaching focus is in the areas of Personal Selling and Sales Management. Linda S. Pettijohn (D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University) is a Professor of marketing in the College of Business Administration at Missouri State University. Her research has appeared in the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Marketing Management Journal, Psychology and Marketing, and the Journal of Financial Serivices Marketing. At Missouri State University, her primary teaching focus is in the area of Retailing. Albert J. Taylor (D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University) is an associate professor of marketing in the College of Business Administration at Coastal Carolina University. His research has appeared in the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Human Resource Development Quartely, the International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Psychology and Marketing, and the Journal of Applied Business Research. At Missouri State University, his primary teaching focus is in the areas of Marketing Research and Personal Selling.     

Are business ethics and engineering ethics members of the same family?

The thesis of the paper is that there are no important differences between problems in business ethics and problems in engineering ethics. The problems are both of the same logical type. What keeps this contention from being obvious is that many view engineers as professionals and business persons as nonprofessionals. If you accept the traditional definition of professional neither engineering nor business qualify. If you adopt the attitudinal definition of a profession which I propose, both practitioners could be professionals. This thesis is then tested by applying it to six specific issues in business and/or engineering ethics. Norman E. Bowie is Director at the Center for the Study of Values and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Delaware. Previously, he was Executive Secretary at the American Philosophical Association and received the Phi Beta Kappa Award. Important publications: Ethical Theory and Business, co-editor with Tom Beauchamp, Prentice Hall, 1979, Ethics, Public Policy and Criminal Justice, co-editor with Fred Elliston, Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, 1982, Ethical Theory in the Last Quarter of the 20th Century, editor, Hackett Publishing, 1983, and Making Ethical Decisions, editor, McGraw-Hill (forthcoming). He has also written numerous articles in professional journals.An earlier version of this paper was read at a conference on applied ethics as part of an NEH sponsored project, National Project on Philosophy and Engineering Ethics, University of Florida, January 13–15, 1982.     

Bribery,consent and prima facie duty: A rejoinder to Carson

Responding to my paper Bribery Tom Carson argues that bribe takers violate promisory obligations in a wider range of cases than I acknowledge and insists that bribe taking is prima facie wrong in all contexts. I argue that he is wrong on both counts. Michael Philips is a Professor of Philosophy at Portland State University. Recent papers by him have appeared in the Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Ethics, Philosophical Studies, Nous, Law and Philosophy, The Journal of Business Ethics, and several other journals. He is currently at work an a book in moral theory.     

Ethics and the organizational person: Revisiting DeGeorge

In this paper I review the dispute over DeGeorge's analysis of the issue of the ethical responsibilities of engineers in large organizations. I argue that this issue is no different than the question of the ethical responsibilities of any other relevantly situated employee because engineers have no special duty to hold paramount the safety of the public distinct from that of others. I demonstrate how critics like Mankin, James, and Curd and May have misread and misinterpreted DeGeorge's position and his argument. I then identify a serious logical problem in DeGeorge, unnoticed by critics, but conclude by defending the spirit of DeGeorge's approach. That spirit recognizes the limitations of attempting to provide necessary and sufficient conditions in response to many questions in applied philosophy. John R. Danley is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophical Studies at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. His Liberalism, Aboriginal Rights and Cultural Minorities, has recently appeared in Philosophy & Public Affairs (1991). Polestar Refined: Business Ethics and Political Economy has recently appeared in Journal of Business Ethics (1991). Other articles have appeared in the following journals: Mind, Philosophical Studies, The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, Business and Professional Ethics, Journal of Negro Education, and Journal of Business Ethics. Articles have also appeared in Action Theory and The Ethics of Organizational Transformation, and elsewhere.     

The Ethical Backlash of Corporate Branding

Past decades have witnessed the growing success of branding as a corporate activity as well as a rise in anti-brand activism. While appearing to be contradictory, both trends have emerged from common sources – the transition from industrial to post-industrial society, and the advent of globalization – the examination of which might lead to a socially grounded understanding of why brand success in the future is likely to demand more than superior product performance, placing increasing demand on corporations with regard to a broader envelop of socially responsible behavior. Directions for strategic and managerial options are suggested. Guido Palazzo is Assistant Professor for Business Ethics at the University of Lausanne. He graduated in Business Administration at the University of Bamberg and earned his Ph.D. in Political Philosophy from the University of Marburg. His research interests are in Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Branding, Democratic Theory, and Organizational Ethics. Kunal Basu is a University Reader in Marketing at Said Business School, University of Oxford. He earned his Ph.D. in Marketing from the University of Florida. His research interests are in Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy and Brand Management.     

The Significance of Gender in Predicting the Cognitive Moral Development of Business Practitioners Using the Sociomoral Reflection Objective Measure

This study constitutes a contribution to the discussion about moral reasoning in business. Kohlberg’s (1971, in Cognitive Development and Epistemology (Academic Press, New York), 1976, in Moral Development and Behavior: Theory and Research and Social Issues (Holt, Rienhart and Winston, New York)) cognitive moral development (CMD) theory is one explanation of moral reasoning. One unresolved debate on the topic of CMD is the charge that Kohlbergian-type CMD theory is gender biased. This research puts forth the proposal that the issue may be elucidated by exposing an ambiguity in “gender” (Borna and White: 2003, Journal of Business Ethics 47, 89–99; Gentile: 1993, Psychological Science 4(2), 120–122; Unger: 1979, American Psychologist 34(11), 1085–1094). We use the Sociomoral Reflective Objective Measure (SROM) to measure CMD and the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to measure gender as a psychosocial concept, rather than as a biological classification. The results of our study indicate that high femininity, measured as a psychosocial attribute, is associated with significantly lower Kohlbergian-type CMD scores among business practitioners. Sex moderates the effect of gender on CMD, but only indirectly. Our research also reveals that education plays a significant moderating role in the relationship between gender and moral reasoning. In addition, age has a significant direct effect on CMD scores of business practitioners. Beverly Kracher is an Associate Professor of Business Ethics & Society in the College of Business Administration at Creighton University. Her research areas include moral reasoning in business, e-commerece ethics & online trust, business ethics pedagogy, and business & the environment. Her research appears in Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly, Business & Society, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Teaching Business Ethics, Interdisciplinary Environmental Review and more. Robert P. Marble is an Associate Professor of Decision Sciences in the College of Business Administration at Creighton University. His research is in the areas of information systems implementation, artificial intelligence, and statistical modeling of business processes. He has published in such journals as the European Journal of Information Systems and Information & Management.     

Assessing the application of cognitive moral development theory to business ethics

Cognitive moral development (CMD) theory has been accepted as a construct to help explain business ethics, social responsibility and other organizational phenomena. This article critically assesses CMD as a construct in business ethics by presenting the history and criticisms of CMD. The value of CMD is evaluated and problems with using CMD as one predictor of ethical decisions are addressed. Researchers are made aware of the major criticisms of CMD theory including disguised value judgments, invariance of stages, and gender bias in the initial scale development. Implications for business ethics research are discussed and opportunities for future research delineated.John Fraedrich is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Southern Illinois University of Carbondale. His areas of interest include ethical decision making and international marketing. He has published inJournal of Macromarketing, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Marketing Management, International Journal of Value Based Management, andJournal of International Consumer Marketing. Dr. Fraedrich is co-author of a textbookBusiness Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, Second Edition.Debbie M. Thorne is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Tampa. Her areas of interest include business ethics, social network analysis, and cultural issues in organizations. She received a Ph.D. in 1993 and has published in theJournal of Teaching in International Business and numerous conference proceedings.O. C. Ferrell is Interim Dean and Distinguished Professor of Marketing and Business Ethics in the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at Memphis State University. Dr. Ferrell was chairman of the American Marketing Association Ethics Committee that developed the current AMA Code of Ethics. He has published articles on business ethics in theJournal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Macromarketing, Human Relations, Journal of Business Ethics, as well as others. He has co-authored ten textbooks includingBusiness Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, Second Edition, and a tradebook,In Pursuit of Ethics.     

Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy

This study investigates current linkages between ethical theory and management behavior. The vignettes used in this investigation represent ethical dilemmas in the areas of coercion and control, conflict of interest, physical environment, and personal integrity. The results indicate that even with the heightened state of ethical awareness that has evolved in recent years the link between ethical philosophy and management behavior remains basically the same as it was in the mid 1980s. Specifically, practitioners still rely almost totally on the utilitarian ethical philosophy when making business decisions.Shane R. Premeaux is a Professor of Marketing, and the Associate Dean at McNeese State University, Lake Charles, Louisiana. He is an avid author with over fifty articles appearing in such journals asPersonnel, Peronnel Journal, Personnel Administrator, Transportation Journal, theLogistics and Transportation Review, and theJournal of Small Business Management. He has also co-authored books entitled:Personal Selling: Function, Theory, and Practice, 3rd ed.,Supervision, 2nd ed.,Human Resources Management, 4th ed.,Management and Organization Behavior, 1st ed., andManagement Concepts, Practices, and Skills, 5th ed.R. Wayne Mondy is a Professor of Management and Dean of the College of Business at McNeese State University. Dr. Mondy has authored or co-authored seven college textbooks, two trade books, fifty-one articles, and twenty papers. Dr. Mondy is an avid author with numerous articles in various refereed journals. He has coauthored the following books:Staffing the Contemporary Organization, 1st ed.,Personal Selling: Function, Theory, and Practice, 3rd ed.,Supervision, 2nd ed.,Human Resources Management, 4th ed.,Management and Organizational Behavior, 1st ed., andManagement Concepts, Practices, and Skills, 5th ed.     

Alienation in capitalist society

In a recent paper in this journal Charles B. Saunders et al. argue that corporations have no social responsibility regarding alienation in the workplace in that there is no significant degree of alienation in the workplace, at least in white collar and management level positions in corporate America.Contrary to Saunders et al., this paper defines the concept of alienation. Having done that, it proceeds to show that the argument Saunders et al. make flounders on logical grounds. I conclude that Saunders et al. provide no evidence for the claim that alienation is lacking (in any degree) in corporate America. J. Angelo Corlett is a fellow in the Philosophy Department at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has published papers in the Journal of Business Ethics, Business & Professional Ethics Journal, Public Affairs Quarterly and the American Psychologist. His areas of specialization are Social/Political Philosophy, Ethics and Value Theory. He is currently editing a book on Rawls and Nozick, and he is also doing research on analytical marxism. The former of these projects is funded by a research grant awarded to him by the University of California, Santa Barbara.