subject: Business Ethics, Moral Authority and the Schools - The Curious Case of Business School Blindness [print this page] Business Ethics, Moral Authority and the Schools - The Curious Case of Business School Blindness
If ain't broken, don't fix it - If it is broken, fix it!
Here is some old news: We have to do a better job detecting business scams.Here is a little more old news: We can't trust anyone close to a potential scam to warn us -- because they won't. And it won't matter that they are the alumni of our very best business and law schools.
Whether it was Enron, Bernard Madoff or the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, the personal and financial havoc they wrought was almost incalculable. Remarkably, nobody stepped in to intervene until after the major damage was already done. Our finest and brightest simply looked the other way...
These scams have therefore highlighted the two greatest ethical crises our business world faces -- the crises of(a) pervasive cheating and(b) people watching and doing nothing as those around them cheat. These crises also served to highlight the curious case of the blindness of our business schools as they continue to rely upon discredited folk theories as they continue to churn out generations of skilled scammers and those who look the other way.
The first of these discredited folk theories -- and the one that is most often used to argue against the introduction of ethics courses into our business schools -- is thatmorality is a matter of character and that, by the time students enroll in business programs, it is too late beause their values have already been formed and the die has been cast. They conclude that ethics courses are therefore effectively a waste of time. The second of these discredited theories tacitly accepts the first, but argues that it is still possible to improve character.
The business schools have failed us...
In addressing these crises, the business schools have had no impact. And before we listen to the howls of protest from the deans, we should perhaps allow the facts to speak for themselves...
As the schools have attempted to make their students more sensitive to ethical issues to prevent future scams and cheating, business students engage in more academic dishonesty more than other students. Cheating within the business schools remains pervasive. And as business students cheat, their fellow students and the faculties stand by and look away. There is no dispute that very few of those who cheat get caught. What this suggests is either the schools' inability or unwillingness to do anything about the cheating. So, if the schools can't address the same crises that the business world faces, how can we expect their alumni to address these crises either effectively or at all as they enter the work force? As recent scams confirm, we can't...
Perhaps one reason for the schools' failure in addressing the crises is that some continue to use discredited folk theories of motivation in their approach to the problem. Another reason is that they are focusing on the wrong problem. This might explain their inability to act as a role model to the business communities they are serving.
A starting point...
Although the schools regard the high-profile scams as primarily ethical scandals, they are actually much more.They also represent a serious outbreak of high-level white-collar crime. To prevent future similar white-collar crime, criminologists argue thatthe focus must be on how to reduce the chances that business students will become white-collar criminals. Instead, the business schools have chosen a different focus, namely,how to reduce the chances that their students will act unethically. These are different, yet related, approaches...
The business schools focus on moral dilemmas. As they teach their students the fundamental perspectives of Kant or Utilitarianism, they ignore the fact that the scammers were faced with no moral dilemmas. They thereby ignore the criminologists' argument that people do not commit crimes because they lack expertise in the application of Kant or Utilitarianism. The criminologists point out that white-collar criminals know what the law and morality requires of them, yet still commit crime. So, what motivates them to do so?
What criminology literature reveals...
Criminology literature reveals thatmoral motivation is neither about character, nor about values. Instead, it is about thesituation in which people find themselves -- and how they perceive thatsituation. As what they perceive others think about thesituation they are in and what is acceptable...
In business, it is the organizations we create and manage that create those situations. Particularly in large bureaucratic organizations, we often create a subculture that isolates employees from the broader community. This can become a breeding ground for unethical and even criminal behavior. Criminologists would argue that unless these organizations create an institutional environment that will promote ethical non-criminal conduct, we could not expect ethical and non-criminal conduct to result.
The leaders of those organizations must therefore step up and display some moral authority. They must unambiguously state that the organization will not accept excuses or techniques of neutralization that are available to employees to excuse criminal and unethical behavior. And if the business schools are not teaching this, they should -- both with respect to how students conduct themselves in school and out of school.
What discrediting the folk theories means...
Because business schools and business managers can no longer rely on the first discredited folk theory, they can no longer simply shrug their shoulders and claim that cheating is not their problem because it is ''too late'' to do anything about ethics.
This would also force them to address the criminologists' contention as to why people are more likely to commit white-collar crimes. They believe that these people they have talked themselves into believing in some type of excuse for their actions -- particularly where the excuses have a supportive environment and a peer group exists who are also inclined to view these excuses as legitimate.
The argument, therefore, is to attack the excuses or techniques of neutralization that students are likely to encounter, and may be tempted to employ, both at school and when they go on to their future careers. The business schools' responsibility is to demonstrate the inadequacy of these excuses so that students will be less likely to accept them when they encounter them in the work force. Whether or not the schools will discharge this responsibility is for them to decide. At the moment, many are not...
Where this inevitably leads is to an examination of leadership and moral authority -- both for the business schools and the larger business community -- and a commitment to discard the discredited folk theories that have resulted in the business schools a path that has led nowhere...
