Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 100, Supplement 1, pp 89–98 | Cite as

Human Development and the Pursuit of the Common Good: Social Psychology or Aristotelian Virtue Ethics?

Article

Abstract

The encyclical proclaims the centrality of human development, which includes acting with gratuitousness and solidarity in pursuing the common good. This paper considers first whether such relationships of gratuitousness and solidarity can be analysed through the prism of traditional theories of social psychology, which are highly influential in current management research, and concludes that certain aspects of those theories may offer useful tools for analysis at the practical level. This is contrasted with the analysis of such relationships through Aristotelian virtue ethics (in particular as interpreted by MacIntyre 1985, 1998, 1999), which is emerging as a strong force in the field of business ethics, and which has strong conceptual similarities with the ideas put forward by Benedict XVI. Aristotelian virtue ethics offers a better fit with the aims of the encyclical at the theoretical level but it presents a number of challenges at the practical level, which the paper suggests may be addressed through the integration in its analysis of human action of models derived from social psychology.

Keywords

Alasdair MacIntyre Benedict XVI Caritas in Veritate Common good Human development Psychology of the self Social psychology Virtue ethics 

References

  1. Amiot, C. E., de La Sablonniere, R., Terry, D. J., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Integration of social identities in the self: Toward a cognitive-developmental model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 364–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banaji, M. R., & Prentice, D. A. (1994). The self in social contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 297–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Beadle, R. (2002). The misappropriation of Macintyre. Reason in Practice, 2, 45–54.Google Scholar
  5. Benedict, XVI. (2009). Encyclical Letter. Caritas in Veritate.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, M., & Sani, F. (2004). The development of the social self. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who Is this “We”? levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational identity orientation: forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 576–609.Google Scholar
  9. Brickson, S. L. (2007). ‘Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value’. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 32, 864–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Foundations of positive organizational scholarship. In Positive organisational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koeller.Google Scholar
  11. Carrol, A. B. (1987). In search of the moral manager. Business Horizons, 30(2), 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan, S. (2011). A toxic mix of greed, mistakes and recklessness. Washington, US: International Herald Tribune.Google Scholar
  13. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1991). Defining, evaluating and managing corporate social performance: The stakeholder management model. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 12, 331–358.Google Scholar
  14. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.Google Scholar
  15. Condor, S. (1996). Social identity and time. In W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common ingroup identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 75, 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  19. Frijda, N. (1993). The place of appraisal in emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 357–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gond, J.-P., Palazzo, G., Basu, K. (2008). Investigating instrumental corporate social responsibility through the Mafia Metaphor. Symposium on Ethics and Society. Barcelona: IESE.Google Scholar
  23. Harter, S. (2003). The development of self-representations during childhood and adolescence. In R. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  24. Hartman, E. M. (1996). Organizational ethics and the good life. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hemingway, C. A. (2005). Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. The Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.Google Scholar
  28. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hursthouse, R. (2003). Virtue Ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Standford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  30. Jamali, D. (2008). A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh perspective into theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kilduff, G. J., Elfenbein, H. A., & Staw, B. M. (2010). The psychology of rivalry: A relationally dependent analysis of competition. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 943–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knights, D., & O’Leary, M. (2005). Reflecting on corporate scandals: The failure of ethical leadership. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Knights, D., & O’Leary, M. (2006). Leadership, ethics and responsibility to the other. Journal of Business Ethics, 67, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leadbeater, C. (1997). The rise of the social entrepreneur. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  35. MacIntyre, A. (1985). After virtue. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  36. MacIntyre, A. (1998). Whose justice which rationality?. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  37. MacIntyre, A. (1999). Social structures and their threats to moral agency. Philosophy, 7, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maitland, I. (1997). Virtuous markets. The market as school of the virtues. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Markus, H., & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 858–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism and corporate social action. Academy of Management Review, 32, 925–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martin, F. (2010). Antecedents and consequents of organisational virtues. Doctoral Thesis presented at the University of Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  44. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Melé, D. (2009a). Current trends in humanism and business. In W. Amann, S. Khan, M. Pirson, H. Spitzeck, & E. Kimalowitz (Eds.), Humanism in business. State of the art. A reflection on humanistic values in today’s business world (pp. 123–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Melé, D. (2009b). Business ethics in action: Seeking excellence in organizations. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  47. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  48. Moore, G. (2002). On the implications of the practice-institution distinction: MacIntyre and the application of modern virtue ethics to business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moore, G. (2005a). Corporate character: Modern virtue ethics and the virtuous corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 659–685.Google Scholar
  50. Moore, G. (2005b). Humanizing business: A modern virtue ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(2), 237–255.Google Scholar
  51. Morton, T., & Postmes, T. (2008). Moral mandate or moral defense? The meaning of shared humanity from the perspective of perpetrators. Small group meeting on emotions, social identity, and intergroup conflict. Groningen.Google Scholar
  52. Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2003). Positive psychology as the evenhanded positive psychologist views it. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 141–146.Google Scholar
  53. Paul, VI. (1967). Encyclical Letter. Populorum Progressio.Google Scholar
  54. Pelham, B. W. (1995). Self-investment and self-esteem: Evidence for a jamesian model of self-worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1141–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pirson, M. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: a blueprint for humane organisations? In W. Amann, S. Khan, M. Pirson, H. Spitzeck, & E. Kimalowitz (Eds.), Humanism in business. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Pollitt, M., & Bek, D. (2006). Multinationals in their communities: Social capital approach to corporate citizenship projects. Centre for Business Research, Working Paper No. 337. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  57. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sheldon, K. M., & Bettencourt, B. A. (2002). Psychological need-satisfaction and subjective well-being within social groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Solomon, R. (1992). Ethics and excellence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Stryker, S. (1991). Exploring the relevance of social cognition for the relationship of self and society: Linking the cognitive perspective and identity theory. In J. Howard & P. Callero (Eds.), The self-society dynamic: Cognition, emotion and action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Tajfel, H. (1972). ‘Social categorization’ (La catégorisation sociale). In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction a la Psychologie Sociale. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
  63. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.Google Scholar
  64. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of group behavior. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitudebehavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 776–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Thomas, E. F., Mcgarty, C., & Mavor, K. I. (2009). Aligning identities, emotions, and beliefs to create commitment to sustainable social and political action. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 194–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  68. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  69. Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding Positive Meaning in Work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organisational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koeller.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Business SchoolManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations