Abstract
This paper discusses three generic types or ways of understanding the common good found in the literature, and then describes the implications of the integral common good for seven key practices of humanistic management. In particular, compared to conventional management, an approach to humanistic management based on the integral common good tends to: 1) have institutional mission and vision statements that are developed by multiple stakeholders that emphasize social and ecological well-being ahead of financial well-being; 2) have a strategic orientation that emphasizes collaboration, “minimizer” and “transformer” generic strategies, a Radical Resource Based View, and uses Porter’s five forces as a way to foster collaboration; 3) structure organizations based on experimentation, sensitization, dignification, and participation (rather than on standardization, specialization, centralization, and departmentalization); 4) develop control systems based on value loops (vs value chains) that seek to enhance the flourishing of multiple stakeholders; 5) emphasize multi-directional multi-stakeholder communication; 6) invite all stakeholders to participate in making decisions, including developing and choosing alternatives; 7) foster leadership based on socialized power, a focus on SMART 2.0 goals, a desire to ensure everyone is treated fairly, and an emphasis on relationships that nurture community and the integral common good. Implications for research and teaching are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Leopold’s understanding of the biotic community is consistent with contemporary ecology that teaches us that humans, animals, plants, waters and soils are all members of one holistic community (e.g., Goralnik and Nelson 2011).
Note that, for our purposes, the integral common good can be seen as an instrumental good (e.g., as a means to a larger end), but also in many ways as final common good (e.g., participating in the integral common good can be seen as an end in itself), thus giving it the sort of “mixed character” apparent in many goods (Kennedy 2006: 16). As summarized by Kennedy (2006), instrumental goods—such as money, an academic degree, or power—can be seen as tools to attain other goods, and “are really only desired because their achievement or possession furthers a larger plan to achieve some other good” (Kennedy 2006: 15). In contrast, final goods—such as speculative knowledge, and most forms of play and aesthetic experience—are sought after by human agents as an end in and of themselves, and once achieved the actions directed toward them come to an end. With regard to common goods, perhaps a more accurate differentiation would be constructive common goods (e.g., instrumental goods like justice, peace and order) versus substantive common goods (e.g., “victory for a sports team or achieving an award for manufacturing excellence”) which are shared final goods that result from collaborative efforts (Kennedy 2006: 16). The final common good of an organization (e.g., a committee formed to build a playground disbands once it is built) may become an instrumental good for others (e.g., the playground enables healthy activity). In contemporary discussion in Catholic Social Thought, the “common good” is typically seen as “a constructive good of fundamental importance, but as such it is instrumental and not final” (Kennedy 2006: 18).
This is similar to Francis (2015: 141): “We urgently need a humanism capable of bringing together the different fields of knowledge, including economics, in the service of a more integral and integrating vision. … There is an interrelation between ecosystems and between the various spheres of social interaction, demonstrating yet again that ‘the whole is greater than the part.’”
The second dimension is “that ethical considerations must form an integrated part of business decisions,” and the third dimension is “that actively embracing corporate responsibilities is contingent upon initiating and maintaining an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders.”
Even so note that, as Francis (2015: 92) suggests: “Every act of cruelty towards any creature is ‘contrary to human dignity.’”
SMART goals have been shown to maximize productivity, but they are also known to reduce organizational citizenship behavior and other significant and meaningful goals (e.g., Wright et al. 1993).
References
Adler, P. 2019. The 99 percent economy: How democratic socialism can overcome the crises of capitalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Argandoña, A. (2013). The common good. In Handbook on the Economics of Reciprocity and Social Enterprise. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Arjoon, S., A. Turriago-Hoyos, and U. Thoene. 2018. Virtuousness and the common good as a conceptual framework for harmonizing the goals of the individual, organizations, and the economy. Journal of Business Ethics 147 (1): 143–163.
Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17 (1): 99–120.
Bapuji, H., G. Ertug, and J.D. Shaw. 2020. Organizations and societal economic inequality: A review and way forward. Academy of Management Annals 14 (1): 60–91.
Barrett, F. J., and R. Duns. 2019. Integrative virtue ethics for the planet: Organizational implications of Laudato Si. In Academy of Management Proceedings (p. 15327).
Bell, G.G., and B. Dyck. 2011. Conventional resource-based theory and its radical alternative: A less materialist-individualist approach to strategy. Journal of Business Ethics 99: 121–130.
Brown, B. 2018. Dare to lead: Brave work. Tough conversations. Whole hearts. Random House.
Butkus, R. 2015. Solidarity: Does the modern Catholic rights tradition have anything to offer environmental virtue ethics? Environmental Ethics 37 (2): 169–186.
Cafaro, P. 2005. Thoreau, Leopold, and Carson: Toward an environmental virtue Ethics. In Environmental Virtue Ethics, ed. R. Sandler and P. Cafaro, 31–44. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Christie, I., R.M. Gunton, and A.P. Hejnowicz. 2019. Sustainability and the common good: Catholic social teaching and ‘integral ecology’ as contributions to a framework of social values for sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science: 1–12.
Dierksmeier, C. 2016. What is ‘humanistic’ about humanistic management? Humanistic Management Journal 1 (1): 9–32.
Dyck, B., A. Caza, and F. Starke. 2018. Management: Financial, social and ecological well-being. Winnipeg: Sapajo Publishing.
Dyck, B., K. Walker, F. Starke, and K. Uggerslev. 2012. Enhancing critical thinking by teaching two distinct approaches to management. Journal of Education for Business 87 (6): 343–357.
Dyck, B., K. Walker, F. Starke, and K. Uggerslev. 2011. Addressing concerns raised by critics of business schools by teaching multiple approaches to management. Business and Society Review 116 (1): 1–27.
Dyck, B., and B. Silvestre. 2019. Enhancing socio-ecological value creation through sustainable innovation 2.0: Moving away from maximizing financial value capture. Journal of Cleaner Production 171: 1593–1604.
Frasz, G. 2005. Benevolence as an environmental virtue. In Environmental Virtue Ethics, ed. R. Sandler and P. Cafaro, 121–134. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Francis, Pope. 2015. Laudato Si’:On care for our common home. Vatican Web Site.
Friesen, D.K., and B.D. Guhr. 2009. Metanoia and healing: Toward a Great Plains Land Ethic. Jourand.
Goralnik, L., and M.P. Nelson. 2011. Framing a philosophy of environmental action: Aldo Leopold, John Muir, and the importance of community. The Journal of Environmental Education 42 (3): 181–192.
Hannis, M. 2020. Forthcoming. Virtue is good for you: The politics of ecological eudaimonism. In Ecological Virtues, ed. H. Bai and D. Chang. Regina, Canada: University of Regina Press.
Hoffman, A.J., and P.D. Jennings. 2015. Institutional theory and the natural environment: Research in (and on) the Anthropocene. Organization & Environment 28 (1): 8–31.
Inglis, N. 2016. Mennonites, land and the environment. A Global History Conference. University of Winnipeg, Canada, October 28.
Kennedy, R.G. 2006. Corporations, common goods, and human persons. Ave Maria Law Review 4 (1): 1–32.
Laszlo, C. 2019. Strengthening humanistic management. Humanistic Management Journal 4: 85–94.
Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leshem, D. 2016. Retrospectives: What did the ancient Greeks mean by Oikonomia? Journal of Economic Perspectives 30 (1): 225–238.
Loney, S., and W. Braun. 2019. The beautiful bailout: How a social innovation scale-up will solve government’s priciest problems. Winnipeg, Canada: The Harbinger Foundation, Encompass.
Martin, F. 2011. Human development and the pursuit of the common good: Social psychology or Aristotelian virtue ethics? Journal of Business Ethics 100 (1): 89–98.
Meikle, S. 1994. Aristotle on money. Phronesis 39 (1): 26–44.
Melé, D. 2016. Understanding humanistic management. Humanistic Management Journal 1 (1): 33–55.
Moosmayer, D.C., S. Waddock, L. Wang, M.P. Hühn, C. Dierksmeier, and C. Gohl. 2019. Leaving the road to Abilene: A pragmatic approach to addressing the normative paradox of responsible management education. Journal of Business Ethics 157 (4): 913–932.
Morgan Stanley 2019. Interest and adoption of sustainable investing continue to grow. Found Oct 9, 2019 at https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/sustainable-investing-growing-interest-and-adoption.html.
Pirson, M. 2017. Humanistic management: Protecting dignity and promoting well-being. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Porter, M.E. 1980. Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York, NY: Free Press.
Porter, M.E. 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rourke, N.M. 2011. Prudence gone wild: Catholic environmental ethics. Environmental Ethics 33 (3): 249–266.
Sandler, R. 2006. A theory of environmental virtue. Environmental Ethics 28 (3): 248.
Sandler, R. 2007. Character and the environment. Columbia University Press.
Shaw, B. 2005. A virtue ethics approach to Aldo Leopold’s land ethic. In Environmental Virtue Ethics, ed. R. Sandler and P. Cafaro, 93–106. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Steffen, W., W. Broadgate, L. Deutsch, O. Gaffney, and C. Ludwig. 2015. The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review 2 (1): 81–98.
van Wensveen, L. 2001. Attunement: An ecological spin on the virtue of temperance. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 8: 67–78.
van Wensveen, L. 2000. Dirty virtues: The emergence of ecological virtue ethics. Amherst, N.Y: Humanity Books.
Wilkinson, R., and K. Picket. 2010. The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin.
Wright, P.M., J.M. George, S.R. Farnsworth, and G.C. McMahan. 1993. Productivity and extra-role behavior: The effects of goals and incentives on spontaneous helping. Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (3): 374–381.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dyck, B. The Integral Common Good: Implications for Melé’s Seven Key Practices of Humanistic Management. Humanist Manag J 5, 7–23 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-020-00083-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-020-00083-w