Stakeholder-Sensitive Business Ethics Teaching

JOHANNES BRINKMANN and RONALD R. SIMS

STAKEHOLDER-SENSITIVE BUSINESS ETHICS TEACHING

(Accepted 9 July 2000)

ABSTRACT. Well-established, well-intended and well-designed business ethics teachingcan still have little effect. This is not surprising, as long as business ethics does not under-take a business-school-wide dialogue about goals and obstacles, not least as an exampleof stakeholder participation. The article elaborates such views in a systematic fashion andformulates a list of thirteen premises and nine recommendations in thesis format.

KEY WORDS: business curriculum, curriculum criticism, faculty-related obstacles,internal stakeholders, student-related obstacles, ethics teaching goals

Business ethics is essentially about self-criticism of business practice, witha focus on moral dimensions. This article is about self-criticism of businessethics teaching, with a focus on goal clarification and on how businessethics teaching relates to its immediate business school context.

As an academic field, business ethics is a growth industry, judgingby the number of academic journal articles being published by specialjournals such as the Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics Quarterly,and Business Ethics a European Review (see as bibliography articles e.g.Ford and Richardson, 1994; Robertson, 1993). In spite of such growth,our business school colleagues may not like us, as Hosmer suspects(1999). Still, this matters much less in the US as long as Business ethicsis under the special protection of the American Assembly of CollegiateSchools of Business (AACSB) which since 1979 has required US businessschools to include some coverage of ethical issues in their course work(AACSB, 1993). As a consequence of such well-intended support fromthe AACSB and other stakeholders “out there” (Baetz and Carson, 1999),some US business schools have instituted specific ethics courses, othershave decided to add an ethical component in some or all of their existingcourses (Shannon and Berl, 1997), while some have done both (see Piperet al., 1993).

The field, however, needs more than formal recognition and legit-imacy. Conformity with AACSB demands cannot compensate for a lackof consciousness-building communication with faculty and students aboutthe functions of business ethics teaching. Such communication may berisky, since it can provoke either the enemies or the friends of the field.

Teaching Business Ethics5: 171–193, 2001.© 2001Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

172 JOHANNES BRINKMANN AND RONALD R. SIMS

A standard format course design for business ethics teaching down-plays normally controversial goals, obstacles and possible conflicts. Butif business-ethics is marketed as a loyal and uncritical servant of the busi-ness school community there is a risk of criticism from its supporters –for being too superficial, uncontroversial and consequence-less. Instead ofresignation and seeking comfort among colleagues (see Hosmer, 1999) thisarticle suggests that

• ideals should be discussed and if necessary defended against mererhetoric use,

• teaching needs to be done in close enough cooperation withcolleagues in charge of the neighbor courses,

• the convictions and attitude level of students and colleagues needs tobe addressed rather than the opinion level only, and that

• business ethics competence is presented and perceived as inseparablefrom basic business professional competence (rather than as counter-expertise only).

This article focuses on goals of teaching business ethics (whygo where?) and on working conditions (go from where?). The thirdcomponent of the traditional threefold distinction in pedagogy, curriculumdesign (go how?)1 should be addressed and discussed as late as possible,i.e. after a constructive discussion among the most important stakeholdersabout goals and working conditions (cf. Figure 1). Since our articlesuggests more discussion and, if necessary, constructive controversy, weformulate a number of theses as possible points of departure for suchdiscussion.

GOALS: WHY GO WHERE?

Goals of business ethics teaching are important to address (see e.g. Gilbert,1992; Alam, 1999). Goals have to do with justification and perspectives– such as why business schools should teach business ethics and whystudents should learn something about business ethics. Justification andperspectives can serve as criteria for an important distinction between twogoal-levels, with different functions.Purposesor end-goals have mainly

1 In the literature, curriculum design denotes the very mix of specific contentsand tools, tailored for reaching realistic and relevant goals. As references to univer-sity level teaching as a special field of education science cf. e.g. Bowden and Marton(1998), McKeachie (1999) or in Norwegian Wilhelmsen (1996), G. Handal et al., eds.,Universitetsundervisning, Lund 1973, A. Hofset, Å undervise studenter, Oslo 1992, allwith further references.

STAKEHOLDER-SENSITIVE BUSINESS ETHICS TEACHING 173

Figure 1. Main steps in stakeholder-sensitive curriculum development.

an outside world perspective and refer to intended, often promised positivefunctions of a business curriculum for societies and labor markets. Suchideals and purposes of a program are not easily disagreed with or falsi-fied, and are quite often formulated as a rather vague justification ofthe benefits of business education as such.Objectivesrefer to specificgoal-states, with an emphasis of internal perspectives and justificationtowards internal stakeholders. Objectives are used to formulate realisti-cally what students can be expected to learn when attending a programor parts of it. Objectives are what is measured and measurable by givenexams and curriculum evaluation procedures. Ideally, objectives shouldbe realistic operationalizations of idealistic end-goals, and contribute tothe keeping of end-goal-promises made by a business school. In prac-tice, purpose- or mission-statements typically appear in public relations(PR)-and marketing materials for business school programs, presented inglossy brochures and on homepages, without significant impact on prac-tical school life. Objectives on the other hand live their own lives onthe course level (competing with perceived exams agendas as shadowobjectives).

The two following quotations give an idea of how faculty could redis-cover and reacquire its role as idealistic and self-conscious academics, ifnecessary at the expense of rhetorics and PR staff, and how one couldformulate end-goals which almost ask for course-level or program leveloperationalization:

Managers should consider themselves as professionals for societally responsive, strategi-cally effective and operatively efficient allocation of scarce resources in complex organisa-tions with a division of labour. They should not consider themselves as promoters of a given


and partial interest orientation. Future-minded and socially responsible management doesnot require any non-economic business ethics as a moral counter-part of business ration-ality, but a moral-philosophically enlightened concept of business rationality.. . . (Ulrich,1987, authors’ translation)

Business ethics as a teaching subject works with a vision of an enlightened, holistic andlong-range-thinking, empathetic and responsible business professional, who has the civilcourage to follow up such thoughts in practice. (Brinkmann, 1998)2

Such considerations can be formulated as a first thesis (cf. for similarthoughts e.g. Lippke, 1991, 1995; Welford, 1995):

#1 Business school end-goal or mission statements regardingmoral responsibility development are “empty rhetorics” whichcan create distancing rather than loyalty unless such statementshave been discussed properly among faculty and students, notleast in an operational perspective.

Before addressing course-level and program-level objectives3 anadditional thesis can be formulated which builds a bridge to the end-goal-formulations quoted above and which makes our background assumptionsmore explicit and offers them for discussion:

#2 The intention of business ethics teaching should not be toteach students certain attitudes or even moralism, but to furtherawareness and critical examination of the students’ pre-existingattitudes. As a result of such self-examination, the studentsshould acquire a more critically-reflected, mature and holisticunderstanding of their professional role, of business activityand of the interdependence between business activity and thenatural environment.

In other words, we suggest as a focus rathermoral reflectednessof attitudesthan specific culturally desirable moral attitudes. With such an overarchingconcern, J. Rest’s four-component model of moral behavior determinationseems useful to us as a theory reference and as a point of departure (seeRest and Narváez, 1994), with some minor modifications and addings.

2 For similar thoughts see e.g. Yuthas and Dillard (1999), suggesting more structure-focus and less agent-focus or Baxter and Rarick’s suggested manager qualities of“reasoning-behavior-consistency, long-range thinking, empathy and helpfulness” (1987,p. 245).

3 Single business school courses are usually described much more carefully in terms ofobjectives, topics covered, literature and evaluation forms. Business curricula as a whole,in contrast, often seem to lack such specifications – the whole is much less than the sum ofits parts.


Figure 2. Seven goal components.

Given the underlying premise that students should not be indoctrinated,but forced to work with their own attitudes, a seven-objective-componentmodel seems useful (see Figure 2).

All these components are interdependent in various ways, but can besorted and addressed in a fruitful order. On the following pages, eachobjective component is elaborated and justified further, not the least asinvitation to a discussion component by component among the variousstakeholders (i.e. colleagues and students) involved.

Objective 1: Know Thyself, Your Own Moral Values and Thresholds

As early as possible in the business program the students should gethelp to assess their own values, moral attitudes and moral thresholds,using qualitative or quantitative instruments (cf. e.g. Ferrell and Fraedrich,1994, pp. 316–328) in order to ensure that any ethics exposure is ratheron the students’ own premises than a form of superficial indoctrinationwith politically right values and standpoints. Such a test tries to createmoral self-awareness4 and, once this type of question is asked, guaran-tees increased interest for the moral dimension of business throughout thefollowing courses. As a result of self-reflection through such tests somestudents might become more self-critical and feel a need to score betteron such tests in the future, while others might very well react defensively

4 Cf. also King (1999), about problem-solution-biases hampering the understanding ofproblems.


since they may feel threatened by dissonance. Such effects have to be takeninto account together with other working conditions (see below).

Objective 2: Learning to See Moral Issues, Conflicts and Responsibilities

While students tend to see the importance of their values and thresholdsin private life situations, this is less sure in business and professional situ-ations which seem clearly dominated by other dimensions: profit, quality,competition and survival in markets, etc. A moral responsibility awarenesscomponent is similar to what J. Rest callsmoral sensitivity: “. . . the aware-ness of how our actions affect other people. It involves being aware ofdifferent possible lines of action and how each line of action couldaffect(our italics) the parties concerned. It involves imaginatively constructingpossible scenarios, and knowing cause-consequence chains of events in thereal world; it involves empathy and role-taking skills” (Rest and Narváez,1994, p. 23). The main point is to develop moral imagination as a conditionof a sense of moral obligation and personal responsibility (Sims and Sims,1991; Ciulla, 1991), i.e. seeing one’s responsibility or co-responsibility forpotential damage to others (stakeholders), and to carry out a good enoughanalysis of consequences, in advance. Such an approach is keeping in linewith Kolb’s (1982) suggestion that the process of student developmentand education in university education should include an emphasis on theappropriate ways to think and behave in our interactions with others.

Objective 3: Learning to Identify the Specific Moral Aspects of a Situation

Once one is aware of one’s own values and of others as potential victimsand that a given situation seems threatening to oneself, to others or toboth, one needs to judgeexplicitly the fairnessof different alternatives.This again requires a set of concepts and criteria, tools for labelling things,comparing and ranking of alternatives. Here the most traditional part ofethics training is addressed as students develop skills in the identificationand analysis of moral issues: learning a language and methodology forproblem identification, not the least of being able to formulate one’s ownmoral standing and one’s responsibilities towards others. J. Rest identifiesthis as the traditionalmoral judgementcomponent which L. Kohlberg’smoral maturity development research has focused on, judgement regarding“which line of action is more morally justifiable (which alternative isjust, or right). Deficiency (in this component, added by authors)comes from overly simplistic ways of justifying choices of moral action. . . ” (Rest and Narváez, 1994, p. 24). Or, formulated as a discussion thesis:


#3 Knowledge of key terms and of the most important schools ofthought is an important objective. Such knowledge, however,should not be isolated from the key terms’ function as usefulcritical tools. Learning the words and rhetorics is relatively easyand not very controversial. The correct words without criticalenlightenment can be worse, however, than no words at all.

Objective 4: Learning to Share Moral Understanding

This component is an addition to the Rest catalogue. We are scepticalabout the highly individualistic ethics conception in the Western or at leastthe Anglosaxon tradition, with the individual fighting an integrity conflictagainst others. On the contrary, students should be told and invited to sharemoral issues with others, rather than keeping them to themselves. There area number of good reasons for such an objective: two individuals usuallysee more than one does, and others can function as a corrective, help withsimulating action chains, and with sharing responsibility. The followingquotation formulates our point rather well:

Managers need . . . a space to interact with other managers in order to discuss and persuadeeach other on important issues. It is also important to act with other managers so as not to beatomized and isolated from the institution they are trying to serve. . . (Otherwise, authors’add.). . . there is a strong tendency to be concerned only with private security and privateinterests. This not only makes managers ineffective as citizens but also makes them moresusceptible to explicit and implicit coercion, immoral ideologies and immoral ideal typebehaviors. The act of working with other managers helps establish a place in the institution,a political space which makes opinions significant and actions effective.. . . (Nielsen,1984,pp. 158–159)5

Objective 5: Learning How to Handle Moral Issues and Conflicts

At first sight, this objective seems to be the most important and testsin a way if the previous four objective components are realized suffi-ciently. However, one should not start with this objective right away, evenif case-teaching-approaches and many moral-conflict-handling checklistsin the literature (see below) seem to suggest otherwise. Two importantsub-objectives become clear if one looks at J. Rest’smoral motivationcomponent: reallywilling to apply moral understanding in specific moralconflict situations, and not forgetting that the most interesting conflict canbe between moral andother considerations. Or with some more Rest-formulations: “Hitler. . . set aside moral considerations in pursuit of other

5 The immoral “ideal type” behaviors referred to are “Eichmann”, i.e. lack of moralconsiderations, “Richard III”, i.e. thorough wickedness, and “Faust”, i.e. a morality whereends justify means.


values . . . The Reich was more important than other values. Another valuecompletely compromised moral values. (This component). . . has to dowith the importance given to moral values in competition with other values,. . . when other values such as self-actualization or protecting one’s organi-zation replace concern for doing what is right . . . ” (Rest and Narváez,1994, p. 24).

Objective 6: Acquiring Moral Courage

J. Rest calls this themoral charactercomponent, involving “ego strength,perseverance, backbone, toughness, strength of conviction, and courage. . . ” (ibid., p. 24). Moral character or courage has to do with the individualself-confirmation effect of proper moral conflict handling, and the consist-ency of feeling, thinking and acting on the individual level. Nielsen seemsto think of such an attitude when he suggests to extend the widely acceptedpolitical citizen role model to business life, to corporate or institutioncitizenship as a moral right and duty (1984): (cultivating) “the courage tothinking and judge independently as oneself as a basis for acting civicallyand courageously with other managers . . . as to resist the immoral ‘idealtype’ behaviors . . . ” (1984, p. 160). In the psychological literature develop-ment of such courage is referred to as “armoring” whereby individuals gothrough a process of psychological strengthening to develop a protectivearmor that will buffer them from the unsavory elements of the outsideworld.6 Through armoring students would develop a certain amount ofresiliency to comfortably resist external pressures to act immorally.

Objective 7: Acquiring a Critical Attitude Towards the Business SchoolCurriculum and Its Disciplines

Perhaps business ethics teaching pays too much attention to bad practicein the business world and too little attention to theory in the businessschool world. Additionally, perhaps business school professors have morefreedom and carry even more responsibility for their student output andhence for the moral climate in business, than business companies and theiremployees, working under day-to-day bottom-line pressure.

It has been said that business ethics is mainly taught by all the othercourses (Etzioni, 1991). If this is so, the critical potential (and moral

6 The termarmor has been used in the psychotherapy literature to describe an adaptivemechanism for coping with racial oppression. See, for example, B. Greene, “African-American Women,” inWomen of Color: Integrating Ethnic and Gender Identities inPsychotherapy, ed. L.Comas-Diaz and B. Greene (New York: Guilford Press, 1994),pp. 10–29 and J.Faulkner, “Women in Interracial Relationships,”Women and Therapy,2 (1983), pp. 193–203.


responsibilities) of business ethics in relation to all the other businessschool courses deserves the status of an additional objective.7 As forbusiness ethics in general, the question here is how much (or how radical)criticism one should encourage. Honest convictions and honest intentionsof the critics is probably a better rule of thumb than being liked by them.Contributing to internal self-criticism of the different business disciplinesis probably more valuable than top-down criticism which can even becounter-productive. We can try to summarize the previous pages in twotheses:

#4 Furthering of critically-reflected understanding should focus onsix different though interdependent moral attitude components:self-conception, sensitivity, judgement, sharing, motivation andcourage.

#5 Students should not wait to apply what they have learned untilafter completing school. Practice should start in other businessschool courses, with asking the critical questions which thestudents have learned one can ask.

WORKING CONDITIONS

Good goals and good intentions do not convince and work all by them-selves. Good intentions can be controversial, too. A realistic understandingof working conditions for teaching business ethics is at least as important,and in particular an understanding and handling of obstacles and conflicts.In our view, business ethics teaching faces in particular three categories ofobstacles and conflict potentials (see Figure 3) which need to be addressedand discussed:

• the existing business curriculum as a whole and the courses which itconsists of;

• the students’ working situation and mindset, and• faculty’s working situation and mindset.

7 See about the critical potential of business ethics in its relation to neighbor fieldse.g. Macfairlane (1998), or more abstractly, Mahin (1998). Cf. also the arguments is infavor of teaching business ethics integrated into other courses listed in Piper et al. (1993),pp. 130–131.


Figure 3. Curriculum-related and stakeholder-related obstacles to business ethicsteaching.

Obstacle Type 1: The Existing Business Curriculum and Other Courses

Business ethics is not taught and perceived in a vacuum, but in rela-tion to its business curriculum environment and to other courses. Withoutproper understanding and handling, such interdependencies easily becomeobstacles. There are differences between business ethics teaching and corebusiness courses (such as accounting, marketing, finance) which shouldbe taken into account. Such differences are usually experienced vaguelyand not made explicit (see Table I as a first trial to list potentially relevantantonyms).

Unclear relationships between business ethics teaching and othercourses can be even more problematic. If differences as the ones mentionedabove are not explained and justified, e.g. as a broadening of perspectiveor as further elaboration of the other courses on the curriculum, busi-ness ethics can easily be perceived as irrelevant, disturbing, dissonantand contradictory (see e.g. Alam, 1999; Holt et al., 1998; McDonald andDonleavy, 1995).

One can understand such problems in a systems perspective, i.e. lookat business ethics in terms of its positive or negative functions for thebusiness curriculum as a whole. Clear differences and contradictions(of the kind mentioned above) as such are not necessarily negative, aslong as they are explained and justified vis-a-vis students and faculty,with reference to positive functions, internal or external ones, or both.Without such explanation and justification students and faculty tend tosee increased fragmentation only, which is indeed only dysfunctional.Such differences between courses, contradictions and possible system


TABLE I

Assumed profile differences between core business courses and businessethics

Core business courses Business ethics

Money Other values

Standard of living Quality of life

Self-interest Common interest, caring

Directly measurable Indirectly measurable, if at all

Clear answers Complex questions

Problem-solving Problem-definition

Lecturing Dialogue

Anti-academic Academic

Typical testing by multiple choice Typical testing by essay and/or case

Ahistoric, present and near future Historic, past and distant future

Analytic Holistic

Knowledge Understanding

Modern Premodern, postmodern

Objective (Inter-)subjective

Pro-establishment bias Anti-establishment bias

Positive functions of business Negative side-effects of business

Public Private

weaknesses should be addressed explicitly and offered for discussion, orformulated as another thesis:

#6 An essential question is how business ethics can function as abridge-builder across disciplines, as an integration mechanismfor the business curriculum as a whole, by promoting holisticunderstanding, and where necessary, as a legitimate place ofalternative thinking.

While the first obstacle has to do with system weaknesses, i.e. businessethics as a system element and its frictions as well as potential catalystfunctions in relation to a curriculum environment, the next two obstaclesto business ethics as a teaching subject have mostly to do with lackingempathy, i.e. lacking an understanding of both target group mindsets andtarget group participation.


Obstacle Type 2: Students’ Working Situation and Mindset

Today’s business students are confronted with an increasingly demandingcurriculum with more and more diverse courses and topics. Not onlymust these students continue to learn the information presented in thetraditional areas of accounting, economics, finance, marketing, etc., theyare also expected to become proficient in understanding the importanceof globalization, technology (i.e., the internet, e-business, etc.) and othertimely topics in today’s world of work. Clearly, old and new courses, andissues, compete with the subject of business ethics for limited student timeand attention in business schools. Compounding this situation is the factthat in many instances students develop the perception of ethics as beingnothing more than an “add on” to an already crowded curriculum. Thismindset may also develop when ethics courses are elective as opposed tomandatory courses as the word “elective” may signal “less important” thanmandatory.

It is also important to remember the fact that students are not ahomogeneous group.8 Our subjective experience suggests (and our courseevaluation statistics, too) that there are rather clear attitude differencesamong students towards business ethics and towards the issues raised byit. If our impression is right, business ethics is not popular or unpopular“among business students”, but controversial. Some students tend to likebusiness ethics as a subject, some others clearly don’t. Such popularitydifferences can be symptoms of underlying moral maturity differences(in a Kohlberg-perspective, see e.g. Kohlberg, 1985) and differences inopen-mindedness regarding the place of business and business professionsin society. A second preliminary remark concerns responsibility. If manystudents feel frustrated and insecure towards business ethics due to theabove mentioned course profile differences and system frictions, oneshould not blame the students, but rather listen to them. A thesis based onthe discussion for this obstacle is:

#7 Business ethics is not the only subject students are taught. Thismeans that business ethics competes with other subjects forlimited student working time and attention, and that businessethics is perceived selectively with mindsets which may beacquired in other courses.

8 We really doubt that business students are so homogeneous as assumed in most papersabout business students as target groups of business ethics teaching, cf. e.g. the referencesprovided by Lampe (1999), pp. 6–7 or by Loo et al. (1999), p. 349.


Information overload and overscheduling of the curriculum is not thestudents’ responsibility either. When courses and terms are over-loadedalready, putting “more” on the agenda means often “less”, and takingattention away from what is defined as less relevant. A similar system-related obstacle is time-pressure due to course level exams. Such pressurecontributes to a short-sighted, course-and-exams-focused9 mindset and to“rational”10 study behavior. More specifically, the relevance of what one istaught and reads in the books is defined narrowly, by immediate relevanceof teaching and reading to the respective examination. Independent of thequestions “to which extent student mindsets are symptoms of curriculumweaknesses” and “who should be blamed”, such mindsets must be takeninto consideration, both when communicating and when consideringstudent participation. Or formulated as a new thesis:

#8 Listening to students is important, since students quite often arebetter curriculum judges than most faculty, e.g. of how well-mixed and well-integrated courses are as parts of a curriculumand how they compare.

The most obvious student-related obstacles, however, have to do withlacking receiver sensitivity, with mismatches of expectations and withother communication barriers. While faculty and in particular ethicsfaculty tend to offer complex theory and abstractions, many students lookfor the opposite: for simple models, for checklists “for practice”, forexamples and even entertaining. Even if the students should be wrong andthe faculty should be right, it is important to offer reasons why such typesof expectations are frustrated. One should check communication effects,too, since students normally don’t receive curriculum contents passivelyand completely, but selectively. Defence or “reactance”-tendencies, i.e.boomerang effects, are possible, too, if students feel that personal, privatevalues are addressed, and fear that somebody tries to manipulate somethingwhich is none of his or her business.

9 There are probably cultural differences in how competitive the climate is amongthe students, and such competitiveness can probably either strengthen or weaken exams-mindedness.

10 We are not sure about the relative importance of more irrational factors such asstudents’ fears. Many students who have had few non-quantitative courses will be parti-cularly uneasy. Such fears could be heightened by the fact that students view “values” ashighly personal and therefore not subject to debate, examination, or preachment.


Obstacle Type 3: Faculty’s Working Situation and Mindset

In a similar way as is the case with students, faculty are more or less well-adjusted to a curriculum system with its strengths and weaknesses. Oneexample of such adaptation is compartmentalization, with clear boundariesbetween courses and much less clear relationships between them. Facultyheterogeneity is even more obvious than student heterogeneity, due toacademic identification with one’s research specialization rather than one’steaching, due to traditional academic individualism and, of course, in themeaning of status and power differences, too. If Hosmer’s observations inhis article (1999) are true, scepticism towards and dislike of business ethicsis one of the few common denominators among faculty.

In a well-known report about how the Harvard Business School (HBS)has addressed business ethics teaching faculty has received special atten-tion (Piper et al., 1993). One chapter (written by M. Gentile) deals with“engaging the power and competence of the faculty” and lists four-teen faculty-related “barriers” (reconstructed from a survey among HBSbusiness faculty (pp. 79–94). We suggest operating with fewer barriercategories, or maybe better, barrier perception categories, and use themthen for structuring our observations:11

• Information deficits• Curriculum logistics• Effort without appropriate reward• Fears of personal dissonance and of loosing control in the classroom

11 The “barrier report categories” are (somewhat abbreviated): 1. Assumptions about thedefinition of business ethics. 2. Assumptions about the school’s goals with regard to busi-ness ethics. 3.Lacking rewards for attention to ethical issues in functional areas. 4. Lackingof new research as a foundation teaching ethics in the functional areas. 5. Classroom-normsinhibit necessary trusting climate for values-related discussion. 6. Integrating ethics mightrequire a reexamination of one’s own value system. 7. Willingness to integrate ethics variesclearly by a number of variables. 8. Lack of climate for planning ethics integration intocourse content. 9. Efforts to increase attention to ethics could be perceived as reproach. 10.Mixed feelings about own role model status. 11. Overcrowded courses leave little space forethics. 12. Compartmentalization of knowledge. 13. Unclear perceptions of what ethics isas a teaching subject could and should be like. 14. Potential dangers related to ethical casediscussion. If one wants to, one could relate our categories roughly to the above mentionedHarvard items:

• Information deficits (1, 2, 4, 9, 13)• Curriculum logistics (7, 11, 12)• Effort without appropriate reward (3, 8)• Fears of personal dissonance and of loosing control in the classroom (5, 6, 10, 14)


While the three first mentioned obstacle types are rational, the last one hasto do with self-confidence in one’s teacher role, i.e. is more emotional.

Information deficits.Faculty disinterest in business ethics can be a naturalway of handling information deficits. It is only fair not to have an opinionabout something one knows nothing or very little about. As a point ofdeparture, it seems wise not to overestimate how much faculty knowsabout how business ethics as a teaching and research field looks at itself.One must be prepared for misperceptions, simplifications, perhaps evenprejudice. Even if goal formulations of the type suggested above providesome information, it is not fair to invite to a dialogue about businessethical issues without firstly providing some easily accessible basicinformation about the field and its state of the art.

Curriculum logistics.Faculty face a similar information overload andtime pressure as their students do. In such a situation a curriculum statusquo tends to be perceived conservatively and in a constant sum fashion.Any newcomer or competitor for limited space, time and faculty attentionthreatens the given course and topics establishment, especially if mostactors are content with the given status quo. One could try to formulate anadditional thesis:

#9 Curriculum logistics is the obstacle that is most closely relatedto a business school’s power and prestige structure, where inter-ference with a colleague’s course and in particular suggestionsto shorten or even drop other courses easily can challenge thefaculty establishment.

Quite often business ethics and similar courses seem to be introduced whenthere are vacancies which can be filled, when parts of the curriculum areredesigned or when a prolongation of a curriculum is discussed, with aneed for filling it with something new. The curriculum logistics obstacledepends of course on which business ethics teaching format one considers,dedicated ethics courses or ethics as an integrated part of most othercourses.12 Separate courses, in particular voluntary or elective courses areprobably much less threatening than integration demands, since all newseparate courses rather confirm than challenge compartmentalization.

12 There are good arguments in favor and disfavor of both models, and even in favor ofa combination of them – see e.g. Piper at al. (1993), pp. 130–131, Leung (1991), Mintz(1990), Gandz and Hayes (1988), Alam (1999), Langenderfer and Rockness (1989), Kohlset al. (1999).


Effort without appropriate reward.University faculty and in particularbusiness school faculty seem to have an economic attitude towards coursedevelopment and course change. Developing a new course or changing anexisting course is a cost, at best an investment of energy and time, withexpected return as a key variable.

Efforts to motivate and qualify more business faculty to becomeexperts in ethics (Prodhan, 1998) quickly raise the issue of opportunitycosts, of learning new tricks and new approaches. Increased research andpublication pressure in recent years have furthered a tendency towardsthe publishable (and teachable), and toward the empirical rather than thereflective (Power, 1991; Prodhan and Najjar, 1989). Such tendencies ofrational behavior for individual faculty and institutions in the short run,are unlikely to foster an atmosphere of a willingness to put one’s “career”on the line in the long run. One could consider a thesis like the followingone:

#10 A close as possible coordination between one’s research,publication and teaching is attractive, while spreading theseactivities is time-consuming and risky. Business ethics involve-ment is often perceived as a distraction rather than as a chanceof making one’s research more problem-oriented and interdisci-plinary.

Fears of personal dissonance and of loosing control in the classroom.Teaching business ethics can be emotionally more challenging and morerisky for instructors than teaching other subjects. Such challenges andrisks relate to the instructor’s self-conception, to the communicationclimate in the classroom and to the teacher’s role authority as a function ofboth. This seems to be particularly true for the discussion of provocativeand controversial moral dilemma cases in class (cf. e.g. Baetz and Carson,1999 who discuss the use of adult only video marketing in class). Facultycan be afraid that such provocation and controversy can easily turn intoa boomerang where they can be asked awkward Socrates-like questionsabout what they feel personally and what they would do themselves.The embarrassment potential of a given case may be hard to predict –adult only videos as in the above-quoted source can be particularly riskyin one socio-cultural setting, while faith questions or racial prejudicecan be at least as risky in others. We wonder if case discussions whichraise fundamental questions regarding the moral legitimacy of capitalism,business, marketing and not least the legitimacy of teaching professionalsophistication in these fields as such are even more threatening, wheninstructors are asked for principal confessions about any contradictions


between their private and their public professional convictions. A nextthesis could then be:

#11 Non-rational faculty’ perceptions, in particular self-confidenceproblems, can represent obstacles which are harder to assess,and hence harder to work with than “politically correct” rationalones, not the least since this requires a climate of more mutualtrust and openness than usually found at a business school.

STAKEHOLDERS, COMMUNICATION AND PARTICIPATION

The previous sections have addressed goals and obstacles to theirrealization. In our experience, the most important single condition forrealizing goals and overcoming obstacles of the types mentioned isopen communicationwith and active participationof the stakeholdersinvolved, in particular faculty and students as primary stakeholders. Suchan assumption is consistent with modern business ethics positions. Openand fair communication can address conflicts, produce consensus andprevent unneccessary conflict (see e.g. Pruzan and Thyssen 1990; Frenchand Granrose 1995). And the parties affected by a decision or a change ofa status quo have a moral right to be heard and to participate. We suspectthat calls for business ethics teaching often has come “from outside” or“from above” rather than from inside, i.e. from faculty and students, as thekey internal stakeholders.

#12 Superficial like or dislike of business ethics teaching, passiveresistance against it or repressive tolerance of it is under-standable, if faculty and students have not had the oppor-tunity to discuss goals or to participate in curriculum designdecisions.

In other words: one point of departure could be to formulate cleargoals, to discuss them openly and thoroughly, with interested faculty andstudents alike, and to be prepared to revise the goals of as a consequenceof such a discussion. Our suggestion for such a catalogue of goals hasbeen outlined above already. The design of such communication andparticipation codetermines their effect and perhaps their success. In orderto prevent domination by the most vocal or opinionated leaders it can bea good idea to start with an anonymous survey of goal acceptance and ofviews about various design alternatives, e.g. early vs. late, mandatory vs.voluntary (elective), separate course vs. integration into other courses etc.


Well-monitored and power-free focus group discussion with or withoutcase references should be the main emphasis, since it simulates real-lifeconflict handling and consensus-building. Or in thesis format:

#13 A curriculum discussion can benefit from a survey of concerns,worries, questions, perceptions and misunderstandings. With orwithout such a start-up survey it is important to address openlyas many of the obstacles mentioned above as possible (and otherones as well if raised by the respondents). The aim should beto reach at least a minimum consensus about all the issues. Asa result of such “action research” it is much easier to identifybest points of departure.

The HBS survey reference to misperceptions of business ethics teaching(Piper et al., 1993) suggests that business ethics and other key termscannot be used without clarification. Additionally, one cannot understatethe fact that if faculty feel they are asked to leave a secure professionalplatform one owes them safety nets such as shared responsibility and teamteaching. Like Piper et al. (1993) our experience suggests that under-standing and addressing faculty implications are the most crucial taskin increasing business ethics teaching. Our firsthand experience confirmsthat there are interdepartmental rivalries and internal markets in busi-ness schools especially in an atmosphere of resource constraints, ‘publishquick, or perish’ reward structures, that faculty may lack self-confidencein being experts in ethics, and that there is a tendential unwillingness offaculty in many instances to participate in meaningful business-school-wide dialogues about business ethics teaching. The traditional responsewould be that top-down organizational commitment is a necessary condi-tion for overcoming such barriers. Heavy funding might be a sufficientcondition.

The story could end here and often does end here. In fact, not lettingthe story end here is similar to the very core of business ethics as anidealistic discipline. If there is a gap between realities and ideals, reali-ties don’t necessarily prove that better alternative realities are wrong orimpossible. The challenge to business ethics teaching is to identify barriersto change and realistic ways around such barriers. We wonder if one couldand should modify the traditional argument about “there are no thingsthat money can’t buy”, business ethics enthusiasm at a business schoolincluded. An alternative phrasing of the point could be “there are somethings money shouldn’t buy” – i.e. if business ethics enthusiasm at a busi-ness school is bought by various material rewards one never knows if there


is any real meaningful and trustworthy academic involvement behind it.In short, from our standpoint, there seems to be no other alternative thanongoing open and fair communication among faculty and students, in thediscourse-ethics tradition. We do hope, idealistically, that such dialogueand interaction build or at least further an open communication climatewhich then might further more successful business ethics teaching inbusiness school contexts. Additionally, we hope, that our idealism is notequivalent to naïvité. Maybe it would be indeed naïve to expect that allcolleagues and all students, or a majority of colleagues and students canbe convinced that business ethics teaching deserves a reserved place ina business school curriculum. To convince a critical mass of idealistic,non-conformist academics and students is probably sufficient but worththe ongoing effort.

RECOMMENDATIONS

On the above pages thirteen theses have been formulated, to help thesuggested discussion and participation on their way. In concluding thispaper we use a similar thesis format for formulating a number of recom-mendations for a dialogue about how to design business ethics teaching.

1. The first recommendation has been mentioned several times already.Fair and open communication as well as stakeholder participationis not only recommendedby business ethics teaching, but alsoforbusiness ethics teaching, assuming that deeds convince more thanwords.13

2. Business ethics recommends fair consensus-building around commoninterests, by power-free and open communication. It would be naïve,however, to deny the existence of conflicting interests and power-differences. Rather than preaching false consensus and uncriticalacceptance of power, business ethics should look critically at illegit-imate use of power in the business school and real business world.

3. Developing communication and participation possibilities for stake-holders as early as possible by appropriate listening-mechanisms isimportant, e.g. by inviting essay writing, group discussion about moralviews and standpoints which individuals “bring with them”.

13 Cf. Fort and Zollers (1999), with detailed suggestions about how to demonstrateethical theory in classroom practice. We would include consistent curriculum develop-ment practice, too, and rather use stakeholder-participation and consensus-building bycommunication as theory, from a position close to the one outlined by Reed (1999).


4. Diversity of moral views and standpoints, documented by such data-collection as mentioned or not, can be an important resource forsimulation of real world moral and cultural diversity.

5. For the sake of developing the best possible communication climate inthe sense of open and constructive pluralism, business ethics compe-tence should be presented as open and interdisciplinary rather thanas exclusive and dominated by one or a few disciplines, such asmainstream business thinking and/or academic moral philosophy.

6. It is important to be sensitive towards various types of miscommuni-cation risks (such as boomerang effects) and to unexploited communi-cation possibilities (such as two-step-communication where studentsand/or faculty could function as go-betweens in communication withstudents and faculty).

7. Course design should not comebefore, butafter an open discussion ofgoals and obstacles with faculty and students, in order to ensure theyhave a fair and equal opportunity suggest adjustments and revisionsbefore it is too late in the process.

8. Business ethics teaching should be evaluated continuously andthoroughly, going significantly beyond superficial customer satis-faction measures, and striving for institutionalization of continuouslearning and revision.

9. A final recommendation is to avoid as much as possible unneces-sary conflicts but to be prepared for conflicts regarding essential goalelements. Business ethics should be cooperative in the business worldand business school world alike, but not at the expense of its integrity.If business ethics does not lead to an attitude of constructive self-criticism it should perhaps be dropped rather than offered as moralisticrhetorics where some parties are comforted by the words while othersare happy since they do not feel threatened. Negative examples andobvious lack of ethics can often have a better educational effect thanoffering the evangel to the wrong target groups, the wrong time, andthe wrong place.

REFERENCES

AACSB: 1993,Achieving Quality and Continuous Improvement Through Self-Evaluationand Peer Review, AACSB, Saint Louis, MO.

Alam, K. F.: 1999, ‘Ethics and Accounting Education’,Teaching Business Ethics2(3),261–272.

Baetz, M. and A. Carson: 1999, ‘Ethical Dilemmas in Teaching About Ethical Dilemmas:Obstacle or Opportunity?’,Teaching Business Ethics3(1), 1–12.


Baxter, G. D. and C. A. Rarick: 1987, ‘Education and the Moral Development ofManagers: Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development and Integrative Education’,Journalof Business Ethics6, 243–248.

Bowden, J. and F. Marton: 1998,The University of Learning, Kogan Page, London.Brinkmann, J.: 1998, ‘Teaching Business and Environmental Ethics’, in C. J. Shultz II

and J. Schroeder (eds.),Redoubling Efforts, Proceedings of the 23rd MacromarketingConference, Univ. of Rhode Island, West Greenwich RI, 188–206.

Ciulla, J. B.: 1991, ‘Business Ethics as Moral Imagination’, in R. E. Freeman (ed.),Business Ethics, the State of the Art, Oxford University Press, New York, 212–220

Etzioni, A.: 1991, ‘Reflections on Teaching Business Ethics’,Business Ethics Quarterly1,355–365.

Faulkner, J.: 1983, ‘Women in Interracial Relationships’,Women and Therapy2, 193–203.Ferrell, O. C. and J. Fraedrich: 1994,Business Ethics(2nd edn.), Boston MA.Ford, R. C. and W. D. Richardson: 1994, ‘Ethical Decision Making: A Review of the

Empirical Literature’,Journal of Business Ethics13, 205–221.Fort, T. L. and F. Zollers: 1999, ‘Teaching Business Ethics: Theory and Practice’,Teaching

Business Ethics3, 273–290.French, W. A. and J. Granrose: 1995,Practical Business Ethics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs NJ.Gandz, J. and N. Hayes: 1988, ‘Teaching Business Ethics’,Journal of Business Ethics7(9),

657–669.Gilbert, J. T.: 1992, ‘Teaching Business Ethics: What, Why, Who, Where, and When’,

Journal of Education for Business68(1), 5–8.Greene, B.: 1994, ‘African-American Women’, in L. Comas-Diaz and B. Greene (eds.),

Women of Color: Integrating Ethnic and Gender Identities in Psychotherapy, GuilfordPress, New York, 10–29.

Handal, G., L. G. Holmström and O. B. Thomsen (eds.) : 1973,Universitetsundervisning,Studentlitteratur, Lund.

Holt, D., K. Heischmidt, H. Hammer, B. Robinson and J. Wiles: 1998, ‘When Philosophyand Business Professors Talk: Assessment of Ethical Reasoning in a Cross DisciplinaryBusiness Ethics Course’,Teaching Business Ethics1(3): 253–268.

Hosmer, T. L.: 1999, ‘Somebody Out There Doesn’t Like Us: A Study of the Position andRespect of Business Ethics at Schools of Business Administration’,Journal of BusinessEthics22, 91–106.

Iyer, G. R.: 1998, ‘Integrating Business Ethics in Classroom Teaching: Some PreliminaryConsiderations’,Teaching Business Ethics1(3), 315–331.

King, J. B.: 1999, ‘On Seeking First to Understand’,Teaching Business Ethics3, 113–136.Kohlberg, L.: 1985, ‘A Current Statement on Some Theoretical Issues’, in S. Mogil

and S. Mogil (eds.),Lawrence Kohlberg, Consensus and Controversy, Falmer Press,Philadelphia, 485–546.

Kohls, J. J., P. F. Buller and K. S. Anderson: 1999, ‘Resolving Cross-cultural EthicalConflict: An Empirical Test of a Decision Tree Model in an Educational Setting’,Teaching Business Ethics3(1), 37–56.

Kolb, D. A.: 1982,Experiential Learning, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Lampe, M.: 1997, ‘Increasing Effectiveness in Teaching Ethics to Undergraduate Business

Students’,Teaching Business Ethics1, 3–19.


Langenderfer, H. Q. and J. R. Rockness: 1989, ‘Integrating Ethics into the AccountingCurriculum: Issues, Problems and Solutions’,Issues in Accounting Education4(1), 58–69.

Leung, P.: 1991, ‘Ethics in Accountancy-An Innovative Subjective in an Account-ancy Degree Program’,Paper Presented at the South East Asia Accounting TeachersConference, Jan. 21–23.

Lippke, R. L.: 1991, ‘A Critique of Business Ethics’,Business Ethics Quarterly1, 367–384.

Lippke, R. L.: 1995,Radical Business Ethics, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.Loo, K. H., J. Kennedy and D. A. Sauers: 1999, ‘Are Students Really Less Ethical Than

Business Practitioners?’Teaching Business Ethics2(4), 347–369.Macfairlane, B.: 1998, ‘Business Ethics and the Idea of a Higher Education’,Teaching

Business Ethics2, 35–47.Mahin, L.: 1998, ‘Critical Thinking and Business Ethics’,Business Communication

Quarterly61, 74–78.McDonald, G. M. and G. D. Donleavy: 1995, ‘Objections to the Teaching of Business

Ethics’,Journal of Business Ethics10(1), 829–835.McKeachie, W. J.: 1999,Teaching Tips, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.Mintz, S. M.: 1990, ‘Ethics in Management accounting Curricula’,Management

Accounting, May, 24–27.Nielsen, R. P.: 1984, ‘Toward an Action Philosophy for Managers Based on Arendt and

Tillich’, Journal of Business Ethics3, 53–161.Piper, Th. R., M. C. Gentile and S. D. Parks: 1993,Can Ethics be Taught?, Harvard

Business School, Boston, MA.Power, M. K.: 1991, ‘Educating Accountants: Toward a Critical Ethnography’,Accounting

Organizations and Society16(4), 333–353.Prodhan, B.: 1998, ‘Delivering Ethics in Business Education’,Journal of Business Ethics

1(3), 269–281.Prodhan, B. and F. Al Najjar: 1989,Accounting Research Database, Routledge,

London.Pruzan, P. and O. Thyssen: 1990, ‘Conflict and Consensus – Ethics as a Shared Value

Horizon for Strategic Planning’,Human Systems Management9, 135–151.Reed, D.: 1999, ‘Stakeholder Management theory: A Critical Theory Perspective’,Busi-

ness Ethics Quarterly9, 453–483.Rest, J. and D. Narvaez (eds.): 1994,Moral Development in the Professions, Erlbaum,

Hillsdale NJ.Robertson, D. C.: 1993, ‘Empiricism in Business Ethics: Suggested Research Directions’,

Journal of Business Ethics12, 585–599.Shannon, J. R. and R. L. Berl: 1997, ‘Are We Teaching Ethics in Marketing: A Survey

of Students’ Attitudes and Perceptions’,Journal of Business Ethics16(4), 1059–1075.

Sims, R. R. and S. J. Sims: 1991, ‘Increasing Applied Business Ethics Courses in BusinessSchool Curricula’,Journal of Business Ethics10, 211–219.

Ulrich, P.: 1987, ‘Unternehmensethik – diesseits oder jenseits der betriebswirtschaft-lichen Vernunft?’, Dok.papier 42 der Wiss. Ges. f. Marketing u. Unternehmensführung,Münster, 67–86.

Welford, R: 1995,Environmental Strategy and Sustainable Development, Routledge,London.


Wilhelmsen, L. S.: 1996, ‘Universitetspedagogisk utviklingsarbeid’, Nettverkskonferanse:Nye veier i universitetspadagogikken? Tromsø, 63–87.

Yuthas, K. and J. F. Dillard: 1999, ‘Teaching Ethical Decision Making: Adding aStructuration Dimension’,Teaching Business Ethics3, 339–361.

Whittington, G.: 1993, ‘The 1992 Research Assessment Exercise’,The British AccountingReview25(4), 382–395.

Johannes BrinkmannNorwegian School of Management BIP.O. box 4676 SofienbergN0506 Oslo NorwayE-mail: [email protected]

Ronald R. SimsGraduate School of BusinessThe College of William and MaryP.O. box 8795Williamsburg VA 23187-8795E-mail: [email protected]

Stakeholder-Sensitive Business Ethics Teaching

Documents

Transcript of Stakeholder-Sensitive Business Ethics Teaching