Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 62, Issue 4, pp 397–405

Individual Responsibility within Organizational Contexts

Article

Abstract

Actions within organizational contexts should be understood differently as compared with actions performed outside of such contexts. This is the case due to the agentic shift, as discussed by social psychologist Stanley Milgram, and the role that systemic factors play in shaping the available alternatives from which individuals acting within institutions choose. The analysis stemming from Milgram’s experiments suggests not simply that individuals temporarily abdicate their moral agency on occasion, but that there is an erosion of agency within organizations. The point about the erosion of agency is deepened in the discussion of a case study which illustrates the difficulty of identifying even the bare “ownership” of actions within organizations. While this is the case, explicating these reasons suggests that both individual actors and firms can bear ethical responsibility within organizational contexts. As part of the effort to present the whole picture, business ethics courses should introduce students to the relevant insights from social psychology and human factors research.

Keywords

individual responsibility moral agency organizational responsibility social psychology systemic factors 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beauchamp, T., Bowie, N. 2001Ethical Theory and Business6Prentice Hall PublishingUpper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  2. Belkin, L.: 1997, ‘How Can we Save the Next Victim?’, New York Times Magazine, June 15. Reprinted in Beauchamp and Bowie 2001, pp. 142–152.Google Scholar
  3. Boisjoly, R., Curtis, E. F., Mellican, E. 1989Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: The Ethical DimensionsJournal of Business Ethics8217230Reprinted in Beauchamp and Bowie 2001, pp. 127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brady, F. N., Logsdon, J. M. 1988Zimbardo’s “Stanford Prison Experiment” and the Relevance of Social Psychology for Teaching Business EthicsJournal of Business Ethics7703710Google Scholar
  5. Card, R. 2002‘Using Case Studies to Develop Critical Thinking Skills in Ethics Courses’Teaching Ethics31927Google Scholar
  6. Card, R. 2004Critically Thinking About Medical EthicsPrentice-Hall PublishingUpper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  7. Kohn, L.Corrigan, J.Donaldson, M. eds. 1999To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health Care SystemNational Academy PressWashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Kraman, S., Hamm, G. 1999‘Risk Management: Extreme Honesty May Be The Best Policy’Annals of Internal Medicine131490496Google Scholar
  9. Milgram, S. 1963Behavioral Study of ObedienceJournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology67371378Google Scholar
  10. Milgram, S. 1974Obedience to AuthorityHarper and RowNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Monaghan, P.: 2004. ‘Verbatim’, Chronicle of Higher Education, June 4, p. A11.Google Scholar
  12. Thompson, D. F. 2005Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in Government, Business, and HealthcareCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Trevino, L., Weaver, G., Gibson, D., Toffler, B. 1999Managing Ethics and Legal Compliance: What Works and What HurtsCalifornia Management Review4121127 Reprinted in Beauchamp and Bowie 2001Google Scholar
  14. Wolgast, E. 1992Ethics of an Artificial PersonStanford University PressStanfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Zimbardo, P. 1982

    Pathology of Imprisonment

    Krebs, D. eds. Readings in Social Psychology, Contemporary Perspectives 2Harper & RowNew York249251
    Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyState University of New YorkOswegoUSA

Personalised recommendations