Search results

In this chapter, we set out to demonstrate how organizational theory and analysis can benefit from the work of the distinguished philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre. In the first part of the chapter we show how MacIntyre's conception of how rival traditions may move towards reconciliation has the potential to resolve the relativist conclusions that bedevil organization theory. In the second part, we show how MacIntyre's ‘goods–virtues–practices–institutions’ general theory provides a framework for reconciling the fields of organization theory and organizational ethics. In the third part, we provide a worked example of these two strands to demonstrate the implications of MacIntyre's philosophy for organizational analysis. We conclude with a research agenda for a distinctively MacIntyrean organization theory.

This chapter questions the way virtue ethics is being drawn into debates about the ethics of social research. In particular, it suggests that discussion of virtue may be motivated by a desire to counter existing, largely principlist, approaches to the ethics of research and its associated administrative structures; virtue ethics has a prima facie appeal for those who are seemingly in need of an alternative moral philosophy. In addition, I argue that, as it stands, the complexity of virtue theory is not fully reflected in, or acknowledged by, debates about the ethics of social research. In the light of these remarks I suggest that the resources of social research can be drawn upon to generate critical theoretical insights into the ethics of social research. I discuss how a normative understanding of practices, and the concept of synderesis understood in a broadly Bourdieuan framework, could provide a starting point for such critical insights. I conclude that this perspective might be taken to suggest that the ethical stance most appropriate to the culture of social research is one of ongoing critical engagement.

The following chapter is aimed to explain what virtue ethics (VE) in business is, its philosophical background, its original themes, and new research opportunities. To this end, we will establish the distinctive elements of VE and its main sources and epistemological approaches. In particular, we will first describe VE in business based on Alasdair MacIntyre’s ethics and Modern VE in Business. Then, we will briefly show the Thomistic approach to VE in business and its main application to business theory. We will also consider a new epistemological proposal for VE in business in Positive Organizational Scholarship. Next, this chapter will explain briefly the original contributions VE in business makes to a theory of work and a common good theory of the firm. Finally, we will suggest new areas in which VE in business theory has not shown a significant outcome yet. Here, we will discuss new opportunities that VE authors might consider for research projects in new epistemological approaches, VE philosophers not yet studied in business ethics theory, spirituality-based theory (Jewish and Protestant mainly) and its connection with VE, and contemporary problems that firms are facing that can be enlighten from neo-Aristotelian philosophy.

All chapters in this volume explore connections between certain streams in philosophy and OT. As the titles of the chapters suggest, most authors write about a particular philosopher or group of philosophers that makes up a distinct school of thought, summarize important aspects of his/their work and tease out the implications for OT. The central question authors explore is: ‘what does a particular philosophy contribute to OT?’ Whether addressing this question in historical terms (‘what has been the influence of a particular philosophy on the development of certain OT approaches?’), exploratory terms (‘what benefits to organizational analysis does a particular philosophy bring?’) or a combination of both, the end result is similar: particular philosophical issues, properly explained, are discussed in relation to important questions in OT.

This paper aims to outline how certain lessons from ethical systems can be relevant and applicable to tackling unethical behavior, including financial crime, within the finance profession.

This paper adopts a pragmatic perspective while acknowledging that there is a myriad of reasons managers act unethically, including the reality that many do so knowingly and deliberately. The matter is further complicated by human nature, given an individual’s behavior (ethical or unethical) is not easily discernable from their psychological, sociological, theological or cultural attributes.

Although such systems may not solve the problem of corrupt behavior, research suggests that industry professionals can learn to act in a more responsible and ethical manner. Given the wounded reputation of the financial sector, owing to their role in committing financial crimes such as money laundering, advances in ethical conduct would elevate both the effectiveness of the sector, as well as its reputation.

It is impractical to think we can completely resolve the problem of unethical behavior. Improvement, however, seems possible through promoting virtuous character traits and ethical behavior in individuals and organizations. Virtue ethics can play a significant role in combating financial crime and supporting anti-money laundering initiatives.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the potential fruitfulness of the theory of Alasdair MacIntyre for understanding how social enterprises may facilitate well-being, using empirical evidence from doctoral research to illustrate this.

This paper is based on findings from research conducted at a mental health training and employment organisation which used gardening as rehabilitative tool. Participant observation and semi-structured interviews with staff, volunteers and service users were used to generate the data, a MacIntyrean lens used to analyse the data, and some suggestions are made as to why social enterprises may be particularly suited to such an approach.

Practitioners encouraged the seeking of “internal goods” or “goods of excellence” within practices, as it was this which was understood to facilitate well-being. Service users shared in this view, perceiving their time on the case site primarily as “work” and choosing to engage with the service out of a desire to meaningfully contribute to the community project.

This research is conducted on a small scale and therefore lacks generalisability. The lack of comparison with other organisational forms using the same practice is also a limitation.

This theory offers an alternative lens for considering how social enterprises might contribute to well-being. The data presented here also complement the growing body of research literature on Work Integration Social Enterprises, considering some of the wider well-being benefits beyond work integration, which thus far has received limited empirical attention.

Purpose – The chapter provides an exposition both of Hayek's causal theory of the mind (especially as applied to intentionality) and of Popper's critique of causal theories, argues that Hayek fails successfully to rebut Popper's critique, and shows how the dispute between Hayek and Popper is relevant to controversies in contemporary philosophy of mind.

Methodology/approach –The chapter elucidates Hayek's ideas and Popper's by situating them within the history of the mind/body problem and comparing them to the views of contemporary philosophers like Fred Dretske, Jerry Fodor, and Hilary Putnam.

Findings – Popper's critique has yet to be answered, either by Hayek or by contemporary causal theorists.

Originality/value of the chapter –The chapter calls attention to some important but neglected ideas of Hayek and Popper and examines some of their as-yet-unpublished writings.

This paper aims to analyze the impact of gender in leadership on strategic orientation and the relative impact of these strategic orientations on organizational performance with the leadership of each gender.

Cross-sectional survey-based data were collected from 1,260 logistics companies, and 503 responses were found suitable for further data evaluation. Structural equation modeling (SEM) and regression analysis were used to analyze the data and test the hypotheses.

Results show that managers' gender affects only the aggressiveness subdimension (p = 0.018 and ß = 0.114) in strategic orientation decisions and that male managers tend to be more aggressive-oriented than female managers. Strategic orientation is more effective on organizational performance. More clearly, when female executives use the same strategic orientation as their male counterparts, organizational performance is higher than that of male executives.

Managers' power is related to social norms about their valuable contribution to the organization and roles are associated with experiences. Thus, at different levels of management, different results will be obtained.

Organizations should only define leadership roles in masculine terms with information or research that explains how women leaders can contribute to the organization's outcomes.

The lack of fit model should not be expected when determining executive-level female leaders' performance.

There is a significant potential in studying strategic decision-making and whether the ability to provide effective organizational outcomes is related to a person's gender. Even if previous literature suggests that gender stereotypes affect perceptions of men's and women's fit for executive positions, the strategic conception of organizational decisions is immune to gender, but strategy execution is not.