Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 106, Issue 1, pp 89–101 | Cite as

The Firm as a “Community of Persons”: A Pillar of Humanistic Business Ethos

Article

Abstract

The article starts by arguing that seeing the firm as a mere nexus of contracts or as an abstract entity where different stakeholder interests concur is insufficient for a “humanistic business ethos”, which entails a complete view of the human being. It seems more appropriate to understand the firm as a human community, a concept which can be found in several sources, including managerial literature, business ethics scholars, and Catholic Social Teaching. In addition, there are also philosophical grounds that support the idea of business as a human community. Extending this concept, and drawing from some Phenomenological-Personalist philosophers, we propose that the firm should be seen as a particular “community of persons” oriented to providing goods and services efficiently and profitably. Being a “community of persons” emphasizes both individuals and the whole, and makes explicit the uniqueness, conscience, free will, dignity, and openness to human flourishing. This requires appropriate communication about and participation in matters which affect people’s life, and makes it essential to cooperate for the common good of the business firm and the society.

Keywords

Aristotle Business as a community Business enterprise Business ethos Catholic Social Teaching Corporation Firm Personalism 

References

  1. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 17–40.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. (1925). The Nicomachean Ethics (D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. (1981). The Politics (T. A. Sinclair & T. J. Saunders, Trans.). London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  4. Barnard, C. (1968/1938). The Functions of the Executive. Introduction of K. Andrews London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brenkert, G. G. (1992). Freedom, participation and corporations: The issue of corporate (economic) democracy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(3), 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns, J. M. (1979). Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  7. Buttiglione, R. (1997). Karol Wojtyla: The thought of the man who became Pope John Paul II (Foreword by M. Novak. P. Guietti & F. Murphy, Trans.). Grand Rapids, MI: WmB Eerdmans Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Castro, B. (1999). Faust and the ethos of business: A report from Grand Rapids, Ciudad Juarez, and Muskegon. Journal of Business Ethics, 19/1(2), 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 92, 92–117.Google Scholar
  10. Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica 4, 386–405 (Reprinted in The nature of the firm: Origins, evolution, and development: 1961–1974, by O. E. Williamson & S. G. Winter, Eds., 1991, New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  11. Coase, R. H. (1991a). The nature of the firm: Meaning. In O. E. Williamson & S. G. Winter (Eds.), The nature of the firm: Origins evolution and development (pp. 48–60). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Coase, R. H. (1991b). The nature of the firm: Influence. In O. E. Williamson & S. G. Winter (Eds.), The nature of the firm: Origins evolution and development (pp. 61–74). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A critical evaluation of theory and research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crosby, J. F. (1996). The selfhood of the human person. Washington: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  15. Donaldson, L. (2002). Damned by our own theories: Contradictions between theories and management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1, 96–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  17. Etzioni, A. (2001). The monochrome society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian Capitalism. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (3rd ed., pp. 145–154). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Ferrer, U. (2002). Qué significa ser persona?. Madrid: Palabra.Google Scholar
  20. Finnis, J. (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  21. Follett, M. P. (1940). Dynamic administration. The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, ed. by H. C. Metcalf y L. Urwick. New York, London: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  22. Fort, T. L. (1996). Business as mediating institutions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fort, T. (2000). On social psychology, business ethics, and corporate governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(3), 725–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freeman, R. E. (1997). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (5th ed., pp. 66–76). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Freeman, R. E. (2000). Business ethics at the Millennium. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman, R. E., & Liedtka, J. (1991). Corporate social responsibility: A critical approach. Business Horizons, 34(4), 92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gittell, J. H. (2003). The Southwest Airlines Way: Using the power of relationships to achieve high performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. Hartman, E. M. (1994). The commons and the moral organization. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(3), 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hessen, R. (1979). In defense of the corporation. Stanford University Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution.Google Scholar
  31. Hillery, G. A., Jr. (1955). Definitions of community—areas of agreement. Rural Sociology, 20(4), 111–123.Google Scholar
  32. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior agency cost, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. John XXIII. (1961). Encyclical-Letter ‘Mater et magistra’. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_en.html. Accessed June 29, 2010.
  34. John Paul II. (1991). Letter-Encyclical ‘Centesimus annus’ (May 1). http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0214/_INDEX.HTM. Accessed June 29, 2010.
  35. Keeley, M. (1995). Continuing the social contract tradition. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(2), 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koehn, D. (1995). A role for virtue ethics in the analysis of business practice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 533–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1995). Knowledge, market failure and the multinational enterprise: A reply. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 417–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lawler, E., & Thye, S. R. (1999). Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 217–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leana, C. R., & Van Buren III, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555.Google Scholar
  42. MacIntryre, A. (1984/1981). After virtue. A study in moral theory (2nd ed.) Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Melé, D. (2003). The challenge of humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(44), 77–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Melé, D. (2009). Integrating personalism into virtue-based business ethics: The personalist and the common good principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Melé, D. (2010). The practice of networking: An ethical approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 487–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Melé, D., & Rosanas, J. M. (2003). Power, freedom and authority in management: Mary Parket Follett’s ‘Power-with’. Philosophy of Management, 3(2), 35–46.Google Scholar
  47. Messick, D. M. (1998). Social categories and business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly Special Issue. The Ruffin Series (1), 149–172.Google Scholar
  48. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.Google Scholar
  50. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  51. Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  52. Ouchi, W. G., & Jaeger, A. M. (1978). Type Z organization: Stability in the midst of mobility. Academy of Management Review, 3(2), 305–314.Google Scholar
  53. PCJP (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace). (2004). Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Città del Vaticano). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html. Accessed September 3.
  54. Pfeffer, J. (2005). Why do bad management theories persist? A comment on Goshal. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pfeffer, J. (2006). Working alone: What ever happened to the idea of organizations as communities? In J. O’Toole & E. E. Lawler III (Eds.), America at work: Choices and challenges. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 2–21.Google Scholar
  56. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1, 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reade, C. (2001). Antecedents of organizational identification in multinational corporations: Fostering psychological attachment to the local subsidiary and the global organization. Human Resource Management, 12(8), 1269–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs. Cambridge: Perseus.Google Scholar
  59. Riketta, M., & Landerer, A. (2005). Does perceived threat to organizational status moderate the relation between organizational commitment and work behavior? International Journal of Management, 22(2), 193–200.Google Scholar
  60. Rocha, H. O., & Ghoshal, S. (2006). Beyond self-interest revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 585–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ross, S. (1973). The economy theory of the agency: the principal’s problem. American Economic Review, 63, 134–139.Google Scholar
  62. Rotondi, T., Jr. (1975). Organizational identification: Issues and implications. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sampson, A. (1995). Company man: The rise and fall of the corporate life. New York: Times Business.Google Scholar
  64. Schein, E. H. (1997). Corporate culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  65. Solomon, R. C. (1992). Ethics and excellence. Cooperation and integrity in business. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Solomon, R. (1994). The corporation as community. A reply to Ed Hartmann. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Solomon, R. (2000). Historicism, communitarianism, and commerce: An Aristotelian Approach to Business Ethics. In P. Koslowski (Ed.), Contemporary economic ethics and business ethics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 117–147.Google Scholar
  68. Solomon, R. C. (2004). Aristotle, ethics and business organizations. Organization Studies, 25(6), 1021–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Spaemann, R. (2006). Persons: The difference between ‘someone’ and ‘something’ (O. O’Donovan, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Stein, E. (1989). On the problem of empathy (W. Stein, Trans.). Washington, DC: ICS Publications.Google Scholar
  71. Stein, E. (1998). La estructura de la persona humana (first published in German as ‘Der aufbau der menschlichenperson’, 1994) (BAC Madrid).Google Scholar
  72. Tönnies, F. (2001/1887). Community and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Vatican Council II. (1965). Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html. Accessed September 3, 2009.
  74. Wojtyla, K. (1979). The acting person. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel (Translated from Polish by Andrzej Potocki and edited by Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka. Originally published in 1969).Google Scholar
  75. Wojtyla, K. (1981). Love and responsibility (first published in Polish, Miłość i Odpowiedzialnosc. Studium etyczne. Lublin: KUL, 1960). San Francisco: Harper-Collins.Google Scholar
  76. Wojtyla, K. (1993). Person and community. Selected essays (O. Theresa Sandok, Trans.). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  77. Woller, G. M. (1996). Business ethics, society, and Adam Smith: Some observations on the liberal business ethos. Journal of Socio-Economics, 25(3), 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zaborowski, H. (2010). Robert Spaemann’s philosophy of the human person: Nature, freedom, and the critique of modernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IESE Business SchoolUniversity of NavarraPamplonaSpain

Personalised recommendations