Ethics and Academy of Management:
A Deconstructive Reading For Answerability
David M. Boje, Ph.D.
Sep 21 2006
Presentation at Ethics Panel for Ph.D. Student Seminar
I. INTRODUCTION
Critical Theorists, such as Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer contend that
ethics is an emasculation of moral philosophy (Boje, 2006b). As Hunter (1993: x) puts it,
“Horkheimer’s 1933 essay ‘Materialism and Morality,’ [is] arguably the most decisive
materialist critique of Kantian ethics ever written.” Horkheimer (1933/1993: 25) points
out, for example, how Kantian doctrine of categorical imperative anticipates the end of
morality, and helps it along by making a “distinction between interest and duty.” Adorno
(1963/2000) talks about it as the distinction between Kant’s ethics of conviction, and an
ethics of responsibility.1 Adorno (1963/2000: 170) ends his series of 1963 lectures by
declaring, “There is no ethics… in the administered world.”
Kant (1785/1993; Section 421, p. 30) wrote of categorical imperative, “Act only
according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a
universal law.” In short, it’s the golden rule without god. Horkheimer’s (1933/1993: 25)
critique is the basis for an ethics of responsibility:
If people want to act in a way that their maxims are fit to become
universal laws, they might bring about an Order in which this intention –
so dubious in the cases invented by Kant – can really be carried out
according to criteria.
1
Kantian ‘ethics of conviction’ not measuring up to an ‘ethics of responsibility’ comes
form Horkheimer (1947: 6-7). Horkheimer is convincing that ethics is an emasculation
(p. 24) of moral philosophy. Business Ethics, in particular, is an ethics of conviction (or
as Bakhtin 1993 calls it a content ethics) created outside of moral philosophy. As more
philosophy professors have begun to teach ‘business ethics’ the avoidance of
responsibility/answerability by Business Ethics, as taught by those growing up in the
Business School is more obvious gap.
1
CONTENT ETHICS
e.g. Theory applied form
one’s discipline;
between relativist
positions; can be
utilitarian or practical
ethics
FORMAL ETHICS
e.g. Categorical
Imperative to make your
individual maxim a
universal (i.e. Golden
rule)
ANSWERABILITY
ETHICS: eg. We are
answerable to bring
about change in the
systemicity producing
the inhumanity
Figure 1: Interdependency of Three Types of Ethics
Horkheimer’s challenge is how can any “society of isolated individuals” acting
with ethics of conviction bring about meaningful change in the social order (Horkheimer,
1933/1993: 25)?
Critical Theory & Ethics of Answerability My perspective in what follows is
Critical Theory Ethics of Answerability (Boje, 2006b) must augment ethics of conviction.
An ethics of responsibility (answerability) is necessary compliment to the ethics of
conviction. As Adorno (1963/2000: 174) often repeats, “there is no right behavior within
the wrong world.” You cannot be doing your convictions when the systemicity is shot
full of oppression.
Individuals ought to organize to join the dialectical processes in history, hopefully
joining the antithesis of exploitative global capitalism. Ethics of responsibility insures
that the external arrangement to effect changes in the power structure come into being. It
2
takes, at the very least, a “constellation of social groups” to effect any meaningful change
in the balance of power of dialectic forces of history (Horkheimer, 1933/1993: 21). The
ethics of conviction is a doctrine to establish islands of individuals who do not enter the
economic struggle on any ocean whatsoever.
II. DECONSTRUCTIVE READING OF ACADEMY’S CODE OF ETHICAL
CONDUCT
The only place that Academy of Management (hereafter, AoM, 2006) Code of
Ethical Conduct mentions obligation for moral conduct or taking lawful action is with
regard to consultants:
Societal Responsibilities: Consultants have a duty to uphold the legal and
moral obligations of the society in which they function. Consultants
should report to the appropriate authorities any unlawful activities that
may have been uncovered during the course of their consulting
engagements (except where one's functional professional code directs
otherwise.) http://www.aomonline.org/aom.asp?ID=&page_ID=54
Where is the Answerability Ethics? It is curious, that AoM does not ask
Academy’s faculty, and Ph.D. students, or business to engage in answerability ethics, to
have their engagements in teaching and research uphold legal and moral obligations of
the society. Only consultants are obligated! But, they have a loophole to not be legal or
moral if their functionalist professional code directs otherwise!
On the AoM main webpage is today’s “Latest Press Release: STUDY OFFERS
DISSENTING VIEW ON CEO PAY: SANITY ON STOCK OPTIONS, NOT ARM'SLENGTH GOVERNANCE SHOULD BE GOAL, PROF SAYS (Posted: August 2006)”2
O’Reilley and Mann claim that the gap between CEO and everyone else’s pay is not
cause for ethical concern, after all don’t movie stars make big bucks. The recent (Aug
2006 vol 20 # 3) issue of the AoM Perspectives has an exchange about the Wal-Mart
Effect in a decent society, to which the appointed business ethicists explain away
Wal’Mart’s effects on wage rates, corporate welfare, etc. on society (Fishman, 2006;
Cascio, 2006, Freeman, 2006, Ghemawat, 2006). AoM business ethics is nothing more
than apologists’ ethics for explaining away moral responsibility of business in the world.
2
Accessed Sep 22 2006 http://www.aomonline.org/
3
AoM apologist ethics is a co-opted, emasculated version of moral philosophy (Boje,
2006b). AoM has made ethics an empty ritual, and not addressed its participation in
Being and Doing deeds in the world of business. What kind of Business Ethics sees no
answerability for the AoM in the world of global sweatshop contracting?
The AoM is capable of being architectonically answerable for its unique points of
participation in the world of business, humankind, and environment. Architectonic is the
interanimation of cognitive, aesthetic and ethical discourse, rooted in answerability of
one’s participation in humankind in events of moral Being (Bakhtin, 1990, 1993).
Specifically AoM’s participation with business invites obligation and
answerability. AoM must answer to its historical and future relationship to all of
humankind. AoM must affirm its unique place in the world of relationships and its own
emotional-volitional tones in a context of values (applying concepts of Bakhtin, 1993).
What does an “affirmed context of values” mean? “It means the totality of values which
are valuable not for one or another individual and in one or another historical period, but
for all historical mankind: (Bakhtin, 1993: 47).
What performed acts of conduct does the AoM Code of Ethical Conduct
mention? The focus is on several misbehaviors in three relationships: professor-student,
researcher-subject, and consultant-client. The professors sexually abuse students and
take bribes for grades. The researchers do not respect confidentiality of subjects or the
personal worth and dignity of colleagues. The consultants are not upholding lawful and
moral obligations in their engagements.
The AoM authors’ situatedness as contemplators is outside the heinous behaviors
described in each principle. Yet who are the performers of the errant behaviors? They are
faculty, consultant, researcher, and student members of AoM. What might be done
answerably about the systemicity of organization is outside the field of the document
(except for the charge to consultants to obey the law and report violators unless their
professional code says they do not).
Sexual harassment, lack of caring, unfairness, etc of faculty to students are
concrete experiencing of another, but only in content/sense of human beings doing errant
things to other human being.
4
There is a profound ontological difference between code of conduct and
answerable action by members of the AoM and the AoM as a body acting in the world.
What is missing from AoM Code of Ethical Conduct? There is nothing in it
about answerability ethics, story rights, and altruistic morality.
1. Answerability Ethics is missing: The AoM ethics codes are the ethics of
conviction and formal ethics such as around showing respect, fairness, equity and
concern for our students. We are to act in impartial and unbiased manner. We are
never to accept a bribe or gift that would influence our evaluation of their work.
2. Story Rights is missing: Story rights are being violated. Story Rights are being
appropriated by Property Rights of organizations. According to Lang and Lang
(1961: 71): “Every story is ‘owned’ by a member of the community Each story
though known by many, may be recited only by the ‘owner’; he may, however,
present it to someone else by teaching that person an authorizing hem to retell it.”
3. Altruistic Morality is missing: There is not even an altruistic moral philosophy,
just content principles derived from theoretical positions of the discipline and
rather inadequate scientific expression.
4. Colonization is missing: AoM is a U.S. hegemony that is colonizing foreign
nations of academics and businesses. The ongoing event of AoM is global
imperialism, colonizing.
5. ONE, CMS, & MSR moral philosophy is missing. I am founding member of
Organization & Natural Environment (ONE), Critical Management Studies
(CMS), and Management Spirituality & Religion (MSR) divisions of AoM. Their
moral philosophy for care of the ecology, answerability, and moral philosophy of
liberation from exploitation is missing from the AoM document
6. Participative Thinking. Where is the participative thinking, the ways that AoM
is in participation in the world of business, environment, and the disadvantaged?
And its not just cognitive or aesthetic thinking. What is missing (or understated) is
“emotional-volitional participative thinking” and “emotional volitional
interestedness” (Bakhtin, 1993: 59-60).
7. Where are the Workers? The AoM document says students and employees
working in consulting or research are “particularly subject to coercion” (AoM,
2006 Ethical Code of Conduct). The word ‘stakeholder’ is also used with regard
to employees. Yet, the standpoint of the worker is conspicuously absent. Related
to # 2, it is the story rights of workers that are being violated repeatedly by
knowledge reengineers (consultants & researchers).
The theoretical (content) ethics of AoM is inadequate! Everything is drawn toward
the teacher-student, researcher-subject, and consultant-client-science relationships. Yet
each participant in AoM has a “concrete, unique and compellent oughtness” (Bakhtin,
1993: 46).
5
III. ANSWERABILITY VERSUS CONTENT OR FORMAL ETHICS
The theoretical world is obtained through an essential and fundamental
abstraction from the fact of my unique being and form the moral sense of that
fact – ‘as if I did not exist’ (Bakhtin, 1993: 9).
Put differently, something like a true practice is only possible when you have
passed through theory (Horkheimer, 1947: 6).
Here I give brief critique of content and formal brands of ethics. Business Ethics, in
particular is the product of an absurd brand of theoretical thinking that subverts content
and formal ethics by marginalizing the role of answerability ethics. Further, as
Horkheimer (1947: 6) posits, “theory and practice do not slot into each other neatly” and
are not “simply one and the same thing.” There is a gap between theory and practice,
which content and formal ethics do not address sufficiently.
Content ethics tries to find special ground for its principles in ways that is sometimes
quite relativistic (Bakhtin, 1993; Horkheimer, 1947: 22). Content/sense in content ethics
bounces between universal and relativism concerns. Content ethics does not posit ethical
norms in the day-to-day life, but instead grounds them in theoretic disciplines. In the case
of AoM the conduct principles are grounded in the Academy disciplines with focus on
equity, fairness, stakeholder, rigorous science, etc. Every principle in the AoM (2006)
text has a particular content/sense at the level of (untested) theoretical proposition and
serves as practical principle of generalization. The document is content ethics and “an
indiscriminant conglomeration of various principles and evaluations: (Bakhtin, 1993: 23).
Bakhtin raises two challenges to content ethics.
First, the method of content ethics is purely utilitarian in its content-sense (p. 23). The
ought-to-be of AoM relationship to business is utilitarian, not a moral ought. “The ethical
ought is tacked on from the outside” (Bakhtin, 1993: 23) within acknowledgement of
participatory role of AoM. I can agree with each principle as theoretically valid in its
content-sense, but ethics is put to a particular utilitarian end. Free volition by members is
closed off.
Second, content ethics is flawed in its attempts at universality (p. 25). The oughts are
extended to apply to everyone as scientifically valid empire sense-content judgments.
This is also a “radical defect” in formal ethics. The problem is that the universalizing is
6
devoid of material context of AoM participation in locality of business from nation to
nation.
Formal ethics (i.e. Kant’s categorical imperative) is criticized by Bakhtin (1993: 25)
for losing the individual act or deed in all the particulars of grounded “once-occurent
compellentness.” There is a loss of historicity and the particular is decontextualized and
derealized in the AoM document, whenever formal ethics is derived.
The AoM content and formal ethic codes (& principles), self-deconstruct to reveal a
lack of moral answerability philosophy. There is a lack of reflexivity of AoM complicity
and participation in the ‘real’ world of compellent oughtness. AoM participations in
“actual architectonic of the actually experienced world” of business (Bakhtin, 1993: 58).
It is the world of spoken, heard, smelling, seeing, touching, tasting (sense-content) and
thought (pure reason in Kantian 6th sense), and is shot through with emotional-volitional
tones and a validity of values (p. 56). AoM participates with some 15,000 members
worldwide, each with unique participation in humankind. What AoM lacks is an
interestedness flesh and blood investments and participation in the temporality and
spatiality of its globalicity. There is a boundlessness of AoM as a world player in the
lived-experience architectonic world that is missing in the document. We can find it inbetween-the-lines. There are moments of valuative sense/content.
What are in-between-the-lines of AoM ethic codes? Let us consider the inbetween-the-lines of AoM’s Ethical Code of Conduct. What deeds/acts do the document
authors contemplate? We as readers are invited to indict the performers of dastardly
deeds. The hero is sexually abusing the heroine. Researchers are not being fair, unbiased,
or rigorous in their research methods, and are not respecting confidentiality. Consultants
are accepting gigs where they do not have the appropriate expertise. There is in the code,
a plane of remembrance (Bakhtin, 1993: 72) of dastardly deeds contemplated by the
authors of the code. There are “event-moments” (Bakhtin, 1993: 70) depicted of faculty
harassing students, abusing them, unfairly treating them, and taking bribes for grading
them. Teaching, researching, and consulting are constitutive moments in the architectonic
participation of AoM and its members in business world. Yet the authors locate
themselves outside the architectonic world of business. Yet each sentce can be
7
deconstructed as an intertextual reply, and a judgment about performed acts, answers to
charges, anticipations of lawsuits.
The AOM is embedded in an architectonic world of the events of teaching business,
researching business, and consulting to business and to human beings, but there is an
avoidance of dealing answerably with root causes of the errant uncaring, unfair, and
illegal behaviors in all its systemicity (Boje, 2006a).
It is in its manifold participation in humankind that AoM has centers of answerability.
The problem with the document is AoM participation is deconcretized and derealized, in
Bakhtin’s (1993: 54) words: “it is deprived of its weight with respect to value, it loses its
emotional-volitional compellentness, and becomes empty, abstractly universal
possibility” that is unfulfilled.
What story is told? The heroine is being sexually abused, the student treated
unfairly, researchers are not giving credit and not being rigorous, consultants are
practicing without science, and the client is doing illegal things. The needs of the
disadvantaged go unanswered.
There is explicitly here-and-there, and in-between-the-lines everywhere, an
emotional-volitional tone to the AoM text. It is however quite a strange tone. There are
repeated refrains about sexual harassment, as in some kind of “prolonged weeping”
(Bakhtin, 1993: 69) in a Pushkin’s Poem ‘Parting.’ And in that weeping tone there is an
unstated glimmer, a gaze at moral life. There is emotional-volitional tone despite the
protestations against bias. AoM participates in business, in the “manifoldness of Being”
(Bakhtin, 1993; 64) partner with business and environment. There is in-between-thelines an “emotional-volitional coloration” (Bakhtin, 1993: 65). There is some seeing of
an architectonic disposition of AoM to the world in the expressed values and colorations
of emotional-volition. My favorite line is the obligation of AoM members “Academy
can play a vital role in encouraging a broader horizon for decision making by
viewing issues from a multiplicity of perspectives, including the perspectives of those
who are the least advantaged” (AoM Ethical Code of Conduct, 2006, boldness mine).
There does not have to be a contradiction between ethics of many people and the
oughtness of AoM as a corporeal body.
8
The point is that there is no contradiction nor does there have-to-be between
the valuative world-pictures of every participant, either from within the
consciousness of every participation or simply from the unique place occupied
by each participant (Bakhtin, 1993: 46).
There is a rightful participatory answerable position in the dialogic concrete world of
oughtness of AoM and its members. My present-on-hand Being to use Bakhtin’s (1993:
40) words is in the business world as a business scholar and it “compellently obligatory.”
What underlies the unity of an answerable consciousness is not a principle
[or set of ethic codes] as a starting point, but the fact of acknowledgement
of one’s own participation in unitary Being-as-event (Bakhtin, 1993: 40,
bracketed addition, mine).
Otherwise the AoM Code of Ethical Conduct is just a set of empty, abstract, theoretic
principles. It is in participatory awareness that we find the roots of answerability ethics.
IV. A REMEDY FOR LACK OF ANSWERABILITY ETHICS
“A life that has fallen away from answerability cannot have a philosophy: it is, in
its very principle, fortuitous and incapable of being rooted” (Bakhtin, 1993: 56). Maybe
there is a remedy for falling away from answerability.
How can AoM attain a more architectonic field of vision of the multiple
horizons of perspectives of its members, and effect changes to help the least
advantaged? AoM could acknowledge its ought-to-be relationships to others more
compellently in “answerably performed act” or acts of positing the “yet-to-be-achieved”
(Bakhtin, 1993: 42). AoM can acknowledge and reflect on its ontological participation in
actual Being and becoming of business.
I propose that the AoM initiate an Architectonics Division. It could be called,
the Ought-to-be Division. There are answerable acts/deeds for which AoM is
answerable. AoM is answerable because of its unique place and time in Being-as-events
of not only the University but in its associations with Business, and the World ecology,
including its humankind, i.e. humanity.
AoM is concerned to be unbiased, to have multiplicity of horizons, and to be
rigorous in not being subjective. The concern for subjective is addressed by Bakhtin
(1993: 62):
9
This will not be a biased subjective distortion of seeing for the
architectonic of seeing does not affect the content/sense aspect of the
event
Concrete architectonics does not distort content/sense when it admits to moments
of emotional-volition to be answerable, to intervene in the ought-to-be in AoM’s
relationships to business and the disadvantaged. Instead of overarching principles, an
architectonic field of multi-vision affirms relationship of Being in the business
environment. In this way there is an “actual, concrete architectonic of value-governed
experiencing of the world” by AoM in spatial and temporal events of Being (Bakhtin,
1993: 61).
Bakhtin’s answerability, it can be argued, by contemporary Critical Theorists,
does not go far enough. Ethics of conviction plus and ethics of answerability is only the
first steps. Isolated members of the AoM and AoM imposed isolation from business and
the disadvantaged does not produced “meaningful change in the social order
(Horkheimer, 1933/1993: 25). For that people must answerably organize to effect change.
Horkheimer claims “such action issues not from the individual but rather from a
constellation of social groups” (p. 21). Horkheimer (1933/1993) adds:
In the attempt to actually apply the Kantian imperative, it immediately
becomes clear that the general interest of the moral will is concerned about
would not be helped in the least (p. 22)
Answerability is a claim to change the social order. If AoM wants their
ethical code and principles (maxims) to become universal lay, they need to allow
for answerable action in the world that AoM participates in. After Enron and
Arthur Anderson imploded, the AoM said a few things, but did nothing
answerable, and did not admit any complicit participation in the education of
Enronites. AoM did not do anything like Sorbanes-Oxley, and di not call for any
curriculum reform in the Business College. Instead AoM conjures the “ghost of
objective culture” (Bakhtin, 1993: 56) of unbiased researcher rigor and
professional consulting. The problem I have addressed is that AoM has fallen
away from the answerable performed act, and its own participation in the global
10
world. Embarrassingly Nike, Wal-Mart, and McDonald’s have better crafted
ethical codes of conviction. And like the corporations, it has fallen to society to
demand answerability ethics be supplemented to conviction ethics. AoM is
answerable for the ought-yet-to-be of business in the ongoing act of emergence of
liberation. That is the view from Critical Theory and Critical Management Studies
(a division of the AoM).
References
Adorno Theodor W. 1955/1966. Walter Benjamin, Schriften, Frankfurt a.M., Schrkamp
Verlag, 1955, 2 vols, and briefe, Frankfurt A.M., 1966, 2 vols.
Adorno, Theodor W. 1963/2000. Problems of Moral Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press. 1st published in German, 1996; 2000 English version. Based
upon 17 lectures (7 May 1963 through 25 July 1963).
AoM Academy of Management). 2006. Ethical Code of Conduct, accessed Sep 20 2006
http://www.aomonline.org/aom.asp?ID=&page_ID=54
Bakhtin, M. M. 1990. Art and Answerability. Editied by Michael Holquist & Vadim
Liapunov. Translation and Notes by Vadim Liapunov; supplement translated by
Kenneth Brostrom. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. From Bakhtin’s first
published article and his early 1920s notebooks.
Bakhtin, M. M. 1993. Toward a Philosophy of the Act. Translation and ntoes by Vadim
Lipunov. Edited by Michael Holquist & V. Liapunov. Austin, TX: Univeristy of
Texas Press. These are Bakhtin’s notebooks from 1919-1921 where answerability
ethics is most developed.
Boje, D. M. 2006a. Storytelling Organization. London: Sage (expected release in
December). See http://storytellingorganization.com password ‘ejob’ to book text
in pre-press form.
Boje, D. M. 2006b. Introduction to Critical Theory and the Deception of Business and
Public Administration Ethics. In D. Boje (ed) Critical Theory for Business and
Public Administration Ethics. Forthcoming Jan 2007.
Cascio, W. F. 2006. Decency means more than “Always Low Prices”: A comparison of
Costco to Wal-Mart’s Sam’s Club. Academy of Management Perspectives, vol 20
(3): 26-37.
Fishman, C. 2006. The Wal-Mart Effect and a decent society: Who knew shopping was
so important. Academy of Management Perspectives, vol 20 (3): 6-25.
11
Freeman, R. E. 2006. The Wal-Mart Effect and business, ethics, and society. .Academy
of Management Perspectives, vol 20 (3): 38-40.
Ghemawat, P. 2006. Business, society, and the “Wal-Mart Effect.” Academy of
Management Perspectives, vol 20 (3): 41-43.
Horkheimer, Max. 1933/1993. Materialism and Moraility, pp. 15-49 in Between
Philosophy and Social Science: selected Early Writings, Max Horkheimer.
Translated by G. Frederick Hunter, Matthew S. Kramer, and John Torpey, with
introduction by G. F. Hunter. London/Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
First written in German 1933, previous English translation in tolos 68 was
translated for the 1993 volume.
Horkheimer, Max. 1947. Eclipse of Reason. NY: The Seabury Press.
Hunter, Fredrick. 1993. Introduction. pp. vii-x in Between Philosophy and Social
Science: selected Early Writings, Max Horkheimer. Translated by G. Frederick
Hunter, Matthew S. Kramer, and John Torpey, with introduction by G. F. Hunter.
London/Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Kant, I. 1781/1900. Critique of Pure Reason. Introduction by translator, J. M. D.
Meiklejohn and special introduction by Brandt V. B. Dixon. NY: The Colonial
Press. First edition 1781; revised edition, 1900.
Kant, I. 1785/1993. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: On A Supposed Right to
Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns. Translated by James W. Ellington.
Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company. 1785 in German, 1993, 3rd
edition, English.
Lang, K; & Lang, G. E. 1961. Collective Dynamics. NY: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
12