- Email: [email protected]
The editor's chair The responsibility of schools of business to teach ethics
The Editor's Chair
The Responsibility of Schools of Business to Teach Ethics John D. Long, Guest Editor 2 Editor, Harvey C. Bunke. / Managing Edi-
tor, Barbara Coffman / Business Manager, H.D. David / Review Editor, Michael Parrish / Art, Charmffme Dapena, Jeanne Jones, Joel Pett / Typesetting, Vicki BlackweU / Graphic A r t and Production, Jeanne J o n e s / S u b s c r i p t i o n s and Reprints, Nancy Wilson/Assistants to the Editor, Karen Meyer, Beth Nellist Business Horizons is published bimonthly by the Graduate School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405. Copyright (~ 1984 b y the Foundation for the School o f Business located at Indiana University. Second class postage paid at Bloomington, Indiana and at additional mailing offices. Pub. No. 080560. ISSN: 0007-6813. Business Horizons is not responsible for the opinions expressed b y its contributors. Rates: Single copy: $3. One-year subscriptions in United States: $15 ; Foreign: $19 in O.S. funds. Prices for reprints of articles available upon request. For change of address please send old mailing label and new address. Allow four weeks for change to become effective. Correspondence: Send all correspondence to Business Horizons, School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405. Telephone: (812) 535-5507. Send manuscripts (two double-spaced copies) addressed to Harvey C. Bunke, Editor and b o o k reviews to Michael Parrish, Review Editor. We cannot return unsolicited manuscripts unless sufficient postage is provided. Microfilm: Available from University Microf'flms, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Back Issues: Issues still in print are available at $3.00 per copy. Out-of-print issues c a n be duplicated at a price of $10.00 per copy. Shipments will be made b y parcel p o s t unless other means are requested. For orders or for additional information, write: Back Issues, Business Horizons, Graduate School of BusineSs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405.
usiness schools produce academically excellent graduates. We k n o w h o w to train people in the theory and practice of marketing, finance, production, and many other areas. It isn't often, in fact, t h a t we have occasion to look b e y o n d these immediate duties and concerns. Sometimes, however, we are reminded that other matters--such as wisdom, honor, and earnestness-over the long run are much more important than many of the subjects to which we give explicit curricular attention. The role of a school of business in teaching students about these ethical matters--about how to discern right from wrong--is b y no means a settled issue, even at a school in its sixty-third year. At least three alternative positions could be taken b y the Indiana University School of Business or any other school about teaching ethics. Let me sketch them quickly for you. In the process I will make no effort to hide m y own biases. Incidentally, I am not referring merely to a course in business ethics b u t rather to the total attention given to ethics in the school's instruction.
B
ne position would call for the school to avoid teaching ethics or even taking a position on any ethical issue. A supporting argument is that scholarly inquiry in general and scientific inquiry in particular are ethically neutral. The scientific m e t h o d is as applicable to one inquiry (for example, how most economically to poison a water supply) as to another (for example, how to maximize the longevity of canaries). One who argues for ethical neutrality in education for business might argue further that an educator's responsibility--especially in a public institution-is merely to help the student acquire and logically use information. In this view, no duty exists to inculcate values. On the contrary, the duty exists for the educator to avoid any such inculcation. The student should be left to develop his or her own pattern of ethics on the basis of all the extracurricular influences to which the student is or has been exposed. Under this view the school would have no course in ethics; furthermore, it would eschew in all its other courses any consideration of right or wrong in the decision-making process taught to the students. To me, this position is impractical and repugnant. Even if ethical neutrality were attainable (and I do not believe it is), I would not want to
O
This article is adapted from a talk given at the initiation ceremonies o f the Alpha o f Indiana Chapter o f Beta Gamma Sigma at the Indiana University School o f Business in December 1983. Business Horizons [ March-April 1984
The Responsibility of Schools of Business to Teach Ethics
participate in an educational process where I was precluded from giving consideration to ethics. This constraint, I think, is inconsistent with academic freedom. I believe, moreover, that a necessary ingredient in education is consideration of right and wrong. The second of the three positions to which I alluded is less rigid. It holds that being educated includes possession of the ability to discern right from wrong. Under this view the school has the duty to help students become increasingly proficient in rendering ethical judgments. To neglect the ethical dimension of any decision would lead to less than complete education. The school's duty, however, is merely to help the student learn how to make a decision involving ethics. The duty does not extend to teaching what the decision in all cases or even in a given case should be. In this view, the emphasis is on the methodology of reaching a decision and not on the decision reached. For example, in a business policy course much attention might be given to how to decide if collusion to set prices is wrong. The instruction, however, would stop short of answering the question. The student would be left to draw his or her own conclusion. This position, while less extreme than the first one, nevertheless falls short, in my view, of full education. I perceive education as embodying not only methodology but also value standards without which ethical decisions cannot be made. The third position is that the school has the duty not only to remind students that ethical decisions neecl to be made and to help them learn how to make such decisions but also to suggest, at least in some cases, what the decisions should be. Putting this thought another way, this view holds that the school has the duty to teach an ethos. I use "ethos" here to refer to the set of values that underlies the normal behavior of most of the persons in a given society. While these values may arise out of a religion, they need not be peculiar to the religion. Thus, they are ethical but not necessarily theological. An argument for this view is that other segments of society advocate ethics and that some do so with exceeding vigor. In this view the school of business surely has as much legitimacy as does, say, a militant campus student organization in urging a particular response to an ethical issue. An example of this third position would be the school teaching explicitly that students, faculty members, business executives, production employees, government officials, regulators,, union leaders, military officers, lobbyists, members of Congress, and everyone else should be honest. The reason for such teaching would be that honesty is implied in Christ's statement of the golden rule. For example, assuming that I would not wish to be lied to, I should not by word or deed lie to another. Christ's statement merely put into positive form a precept that had been in the Judaic tradition in a negative form for centuries. (Avoid doing to someone else what you would not want done to you.) The same precept was adopted by Immanuel Kant in enunciating his famous Categorial Imperative which, paraphrased, indicates that I should act so that I can wish that my conduct will become the universal pattern of activity. Not wanting to be lied to, I should not lie. The precept is also embodied in the tort of fraud, which is fundamental to our civil law. This third position simply holds that the school has the duty to teach an ethos. Presumably, honesty is sufficiently widely commended to be one element of such an ethos. Compassion'might be another; caution still another. Honor, wisdom, earnestness, and charity could be others. What the other elements of the ethos might be is a matter for further speculation. I like this position but can see major problems with it. I will mention only two. One problem is that teaching an ethos can easily be overdone.
"Even if ethical neutrality were attainable (and I do not believe it is), I would not want to participate in an educational process w h e r e I was p r e c l u d e d f r o m giving consideration to ethics. This constraint, I think, is inconsistent with academic f r e e d o m . I believe, m o r e o v e r , that a necessary ingredient in education is consideration o f right and wrong."
"As a faculty member of a school of business, I am interested in but puzzled by my responsibility for teaching the ethical aspects of decision making."
4
Each of us inherently resists--aside from accepting a few generalitiesbeing told what is right and what is wrong. Another problem lies in the nature of the ethos. For example, we cannot help but wonder how widespread a given quality or practice must become to be a part of the ethos. We might disagree about whether right and wrong axe determined by generally accepted customs or by immutable laws of God. Current ethical disagreement over abortion exemplifies the difficulties in defining the ethos that should be taught by the School of Business. a faculty member of a school of business, I am interested in but uzzled by m y responsibility for teaching the ethical aspects of decision making. I confess that too often I fail to take an ethical position even though I feel that a given ethical value is applicable. One reason for m y reticence is that I regard myself as often being a poor role model in exemplifying the ethical values that I like to profess. As the result, I often back off from doing any professing at all. I suspect numerous other faculty members feel the same tugs and hesitancies that I feel in wondering whether or not to address ethical aspects inherent in business and personal decisions. Necessarily, this issue must be left hanging; it cannot be settled. I would hope that schools would provide at least some ethical guidance for students but would not usurp students' freedom and responsibility to develop their own sense of right and wrong. If business schools err, I suspect it is in providing too little rather than too m u c h of such guidance. I would hope, with respect to future generations of students, that we can learn better how to do two things simultaneously: (1) to communicate our own ethics and (2) to do so without propagandizing, without brainwashing, and without appearing to want to dictate ethics. In m y view students need to be better informed about the ethical views of the faculty but must be left with the full opportunity and duty to develop their own ethical values. [Z3 J o h n D. Long Professor and Chairperson of Insurance and Acting Dean of the School of Business, Indiana University
The Responsibility of Schools of Business to Teach Ethics John D. Long, Guest Editor 2 Editor, Harvey C. Bunke. / Managing Edi-
tor, Barbara Coffman / Business Manager, H.D. David / Review Editor, Michael Parrish / Art, Charmffme Dapena, Jeanne Jones, Joel Pett / Typesetting, Vicki BlackweU / Graphic A r t and Production, Jeanne J o n e s / S u b s c r i p t i o n s and Reprints, Nancy Wilson/Assistants to the Editor, Karen Meyer, Beth Nellist Business Horizons is published bimonthly by the Graduate School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405. Copyright (~ 1984 b y the Foundation for the School o f Business located at Indiana University. Second class postage paid at Bloomington, Indiana and at additional mailing offices. Pub. No. 080560. ISSN: 0007-6813. Business Horizons is not responsible for the opinions expressed b y its contributors. Rates: Single copy: $3. One-year subscriptions in United States: $15 ; Foreign: $19 in O.S. funds. Prices for reprints of articles available upon request. For change of address please send old mailing label and new address. Allow four weeks for change to become effective. Correspondence: Send all correspondence to Business Horizons, School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405. Telephone: (812) 535-5507. Send manuscripts (two double-spaced copies) addressed to Harvey C. Bunke, Editor and b o o k reviews to Michael Parrish, Review Editor. We cannot return unsolicited manuscripts unless sufficient postage is provided. Microfilm: Available from University Microf'flms, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Back Issues: Issues still in print are available at $3.00 per copy. Out-of-print issues c a n be duplicated at a price of $10.00 per copy. Shipments will be made b y parcel p o s t unless other means are requested. For orders or for additional information, write: Back Issues, Business Horizons, Graduate School of BusineSs, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405.
usiness schools produce academically excellent graduates. We k n o w h o w to train people in the theory and practice of marketing, finance, production, and many other areas. It isn't often, in fact, t h a t we have occasion to look b e y o n d these immediate duties and concerns. Sometimes, however, we are reminded that other matters--such as wisdom, honor, and earnestness-over the long run are much more important than many of the subjects to which we give explicit curricular attention. The role of a school of business in teaching students about these ethical matters--about how to discern right from wrong--is b y no means a settled issue, even at a school in its sixty-third year. At least three alternative positions could be taken b y the Indiana University School of Business or any other school about teaching ethics. Let me sketch them quickly for you. In the process I will make no effort to hide m y own biases. Incidentally, I am not referring merely to a course in business ethics b u t rather to the total attention given to ethics in the school's instruction.
B
ne position would call for the school to avoid teaching ethics or even taking a position on any ethical issue. A supporting argument is that scholarly inquiry in general and scientific inquiry in particular are ethically neutral. The scientific m e t h o d is as applicable to one inquiry (for example, how most economically to poison a water supply) as to another (for example, how to maximize the longevity of canaries). One who argues for ethical neutrality in education for business might argue further that an educator's responsibility--especially in a public institution-is merely to help the student acquire and logically use information. In this view, no duty exists to inculcate values. On the contrary, the duty exists for the educator to avoid any such inculcation. The student should be left to develop his or her own pattern of ethics on the basis of all the extracurricular influences to which the student is or has been exposed. Under this view the school would have no course in ethics; furthermore, it would eschew in all its other courses any consideration of right or wrong in the decision-making process taught to the students. To me, this position is impractical and repugnant. Even if ethical neutrality were attainable (and I do not believe it is), I would not want to
O
This article is adapted from a talk given at the initiation ceremonies o f the Alpha o f Indiana Chapter o f Beta Gamma Sigma at the Indiana University School o f Business in December 1983. Business Horizons [ March-April 1984
The Responsibility of Schools of Business to Teach Ethics
participate in an educational process where I was precluded from giving consideration to ethics. This constraint, I think, is inconsistent with academic freedom. I believe, moreover, that a necessary ingredient in education is consideration of right and wrong. The second of the three positions to which I alluded is less rigid. It holds that being educated includes possession of the ability to discern right from wrong. Under this view the school has the duty to help students become increasingly proficient in rendering ethical judgments. To neglect the ethical dimension of any decision would lead to less than complete education. The school's duty, however, is merely to help the student learn how to make a decision involving ethics. The duty does not extend to teaching what the decision in all cases or even in a given case should be. In this view, the emphasis is on the methodology of reaching a decision and not on the decision reached. For example, in a business policy course much attention might be given to how to decide if collusion to set prices is wrong. The instruction, however, would stop short of answering the question. The student would be left to draw his or her own conclusion. This position, while less extreme than the first one, nevertheless falls short, in my view, of full education. I perceive education as embodying not only methodology but also value standards without which ethical decisions cannot be made. The third position is that the school has the duty not only to remind students that ethical decisions neecl to be made and to help them learn how to make such decisions but also to suggest, at least in some cases, what the decisions should be. Putting this thought another way, this view holds that the school has the duty to teach an ethos. I use "ethos" here to refer to the set of values that underlies the normal behavior of most of the persons in a given society. While these values may arise out of a religion, they need not be peculiar to the religion. Thus, they are ethical but not necessarily theological. An argument for this view is that other segments of society advocate ethics and that some do so with exceeding vigor. In this view the school of business surely has as much legitimacy as does, say, a militant campus student organization in urging a particular response to an ethical issue. An example of this third position would be the school teaching explicitly that students, faculty members, business executives, production employees, government officials, regulators,, union leaders, military officers, lobbyists, members of Congress, and everyone else should be honest. The reason for such teaching would be that honesty is implied in Christ's statement of the golden rule. For example, assuming that I would not wish to be lied to, I should not by word or deed lie to another. Christ's statement merely put into positive form a precept that had been in the Judaic tradition in a negative form for centuries. (Avoid doing to someone else what you would not want done to you.) The same precept was adopted by Immanuel Kant in enunciating his famous Categorial Imperative which, paraphrased, indicates that I should act so that I can wish that my conduct will become the universal pattern of activity. Not wanting to be lied to, I should not lie. The precept is also embodied in the tort of fraud, which is fundamental to our civil law. This third position simply holds that the school has the duty to teach an ethos. Presumably, honesty is sufficiently widely commended to be one element of such an ethos. Compassion'might be another; caution still another. Honor, wisdom, earnestness, and charity could be others. What the other elements of the ethos might be is a matter for further speculation. I like this position but can see major problems with it. I will mention only two. One problem is that teaching an ethos can easily be overdone.
"Even if ethical neutrality were attainable (and I do not believe it is), I would not want to participate in an educational process w h e r e I was p r e c l u d e d f r o m giving consideration to ethics. This constraint, I think, is inconsistent with academic f r e e d o m . I believe, m o r e o v e r , that a necessary ingredient in education is consideration o f right and wrong."
"As a faculty member of a school of business, I am interested in but puzzled by my responsibility for teaching the ethical aspects of decision making."
4
Each of us inherently resists--aside from accepting a few generalitiesbeing told what is right and what is wrong. Another problem lies in the nature of the ethos. For example, we cannot help but wonder how widespread a given quality or practice must become to be a part of the ethos. We might disagree about whether right and wrong axe determined by generally accepted customs or by immutable laws of God. Current ethical disagreement over abortion exemplifies the difficulties in defining the ethos that should be taught by the School of Business. a faculty member of a school of business, I am interested in but uzzled by m y responsibility for teaching the ethical aspects of decision making. I confess that too often I fail to take an ethical position even though I feel that a given ethical value is applicable. One reason for m y reticence is that I regard myself as often being a poor role model in exemplifying the ethical values that I like to profess. As the result, I often back off from doing any professing at all. I suspect numerous other faculty members feel the same tugs and hesitancies that I feel in wondering whether or not to address ethical aspects inherent in business and personal decisions. Necessarily, this issue must be left hanging; it cannot be settled. I would hope that schools would provide at least some ethical guidance for students but would not usurp students' freedom and responsibility to develop their own sense of right and wrong. If business schools err, I suspect it is in providing too little rather than too m u c h of such guidance. I would hope, with respect to future generations of students, that we can learn better how to do two things simultaneously: (1) to communicate our own ethics and (2) to do so without propagandizing, without brainwashing, and without appearing to want to dictate ethics. In m y view students need to be better informed about the ethical views of the faculty but must be left with the full opportunity and duty to develop their own ethical values. [Z3 J o h n D. Long Professor and Chairperson of Insurance and Acting Dean of the School of Business, Indiana University