Advertisement

Leaving the Road to Abilene: A Pragmatic Approach to Addressing the Normative Paradox of Responsible Management Education

  • Dirk C. Moosmayer
  • Sandra Waddock
  • Long Wang
  • Matthias P. Hühn
  • Claus Dierksmeier
  • Christopher Gohl
Original Paper

Abstract

We identify a normative paradox of responsible management education. Business educators aim to promote social values and develop ethical habits and socially responsible mindsets through education, but they attempt to do so with theories that have normative underpinnings and create actual normative effects that counteract their intentions. We identify a limited conceptualization of freedom in economic theorizing as a cause of the paradox. Economic theory emphasizes individual freedom and understands this as the freedom to choose from available options (a view that can be characterized as quantitative, negative freedom). However, conceptualizing individuals as profit-maximizing actors neglects their freedom to reflect on the purposes and goals of their actions (a qualitative, potential view of freedom). We build on the work of pragmatist philosopher John Dewey, who distinguishes between habitualized and creative problem-solving behaviors (theory of action), conceptualizes knowledge construction as a process of interdependent scientific social inquiry (epistemology), and understands actors as having the freedom to determine what kind of people they wish to be (ethics). We apply pragmatist theory to business education and suggest equipping students with a plurality of theories, supplementing neoclassical economics with other economic perspectives (e.g., Post-Keynesian, Marxist, ecological, evolutionary, and feminist economics) and views from other disciplines (e.g., sociology, psychology, and political science) on economic behavior. Moreover, we suggest putting students into learning situations that require practical problem solution through interdependent social inquiry (e.g., using cases and real-world business projects), encouraging ethical reflection. In doing so, we contribute by linking the problematic conceptions of freedom identified in economic theorizing to the debate on responsible management education. We conceptualize a pragmatist approach to management education that explicitly re-integrates the freedom to discursively reflect on the individual and societal purpose of business activity and thereby makes existing tools and pedagogies useful for bringing potential freedom back into business.

Keywords

Values Self-interest Freedom Pragmatism Dewey Learning PRME Business education 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their developmental feedback. We are grateful to the editors of this special issue (Mollie Painter-Morland et al.) for their patience and the guidance during the review process. We further thank the attendees of our AOM 2013 symposium on “Questioning self-interest: Addressing the hidden moral impact of management theory and education” for their constructive reflections and comments on early thoughts leading to this paper. Finally, we very much thank Ms. Susannah Davis (University of Passau) for her in-depth feedback and her editing work on various versions of this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human and Animal Participants

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. AACSB International. (2004). Ethics education in business schools—report of the Ethics Education Task Force to the AACSB International’s Board of Directors. Retrieved August 20, 2017, from http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Publications/research-reports/ethics-education.ashx.
  2. Arce, D. G., & Gentile, M. C. (2015). Giving voice to values as a leverage point in business ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(3), 535–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthurs, J. D., Hoskisson, R. E., Busenitz, L. W., & Johnson, R. A. (2008). Managerial agents watching other agents: Multiple agency conflicts regarding underpricing in IPO firms. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrie, S. C. (2007). A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes. Studies in higher education, 32(4), 439–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauman, Y., & Rose, E. (2011). Selection or indoctrination: Why do economics students donate less than the rest? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 79(3), 318–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beckert, J., & Aspers, P. (2011). The worth of goods: Valuation and pricing in the economy: Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.Google Scholar
  8. Bentham, J. (1954). Defence of a maximum. Economic Writings, 3, 257–258.Google Scholar
  9. Boddewyn, J. J., & Brewer, T. L. (1994). International-business political behavior: New theoretical directions. Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 119–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bondy, K. (2008). The paradox of power in CSR: A case study on implementation. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carter, J. R., & Irons, M. D. (1991). Are economists different, and if so, why? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2), 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheng, I. H., Hong, H., & Scheinkman, J. A. (2015). Yesterday’s heroes: Compensation and risk at financial firms. The Journal of Finance, 70(2), 839–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cherryholmes, C. H. (1992). Notes on pragmatism and scientific realism. Educational Researcher, 21(6), 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, M. (2012). Paradoxes from A to Z (3rd ed.). Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, M. A. (2010). The narrow application of Rawls in business ethics: A political conception of both stakeholder theory and the morality of markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), 563–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Costanza, R. (1989). What is ecological economics? Ecological Economics, 1(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cruz, C. C., Gómez-Mejia, L. R., & Becerra, M. (2010). Perceptions of benevolence and the design of agency contracts: CEO-TMT relationships in family firms. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Colle, S., & Gonella, C. (2002). The social and ethical alchemy: An integrative approach to social and ethical accountability. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(1), 86–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Colle, S., Henriques, A., & Sarasvathy, S. (2014). The paradox of corporate social responsibility standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(2), 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Décamps, A., Barbat, G., Carteron, J.-C., Hands, V., & Parkes, C. (2017). Sulitest: A collaborative initiative to support and assess sustainability literacy in higher education. The International Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Derrida, J. (1993). Aporias. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Descartes, R. (1996). Discourse on the method: And, meditations on first philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Dewey, J. (1891). Outlines of a critical theory of ethics. Ann Arbor, MI: Register Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dewey, J. (1911). Contributions to a cyclopedia of education. John Dewey: The Middle Works, 6, 357–467.Google Scholar
  26. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Dewey, J. (1922). Human nature and conduct. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  28. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  29. Dewey, J. (1930). The quest for certainty: A study of the relation of knowledge and action. The Journal of Philosophy, 27(1), 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dewey, J. (1938a). Experience and education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi.Google Scholar
  31. Dewey, J. (1938b). The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Wiston.Google Scholar
  32. Dewey, J. (1939). Freedom and culture. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  33. Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Dewey, J. (1984). John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925–1953. 1929–1930. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. North Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
  36. Dewey, J., & Tufts, J. H. (1908). Civil society and the political state.Google Scholar
  37. Dewey, J., & Tufts, J. H. (1932). Ethics (rev. ed.). New York: H. Holt and company.Google Scholar
  38. Dierksmeier, C. (2011). The freedom–responsibility nexus in management philosophy and business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(2), 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dierksmeier, C. (2016a). Qualitative Freiheit: Selbstbestimmung in weltbürgerlicher Verantwortung [Qualitative Freedom: self-determination in cosmopolitan responsibility]. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  40. Dierksmeier, C. (2016b). Reframing economic ethics: The philosophical foundations of humanistic management. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Dierksmeier, C., & Pirson, M. (2010). The modern corporation and the idea of freedom. Philosophy of Management, 9(3), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Dopfer, K. (2005). The evolutionary foundations of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Dow, S. C. (2000). Prospects for the progress of heterodox economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22(2), 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Dow, S. C. (2008). Plurality in orthodox and heterodox economics. The Journal of Philosophical Economics, 1(2), 73–96.Google Scholar
  45. Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4), 512–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Dyck, B., & Kleysen, R. (2001). Aristotle’s virtues and management thought: An empirical exploration of an integrative pedagogy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(4), 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2008). Doing good: Business and the sustainability challenge. The Economist (January).Google Scholar
  48. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1881). Mathematical psychics: An essay on the application of mathematics to the moral sciences. London, UK: C. Kegan Paul & Co.Google Scholar
  49. EFMD. (2013). EFMD introduces broader coverage of ethics, responsibility and sustainability to EQUIS. Retrieved August 20, 2017, from http://www.efmd.org/blog/view/278-efmd-introduces-broader-coverage-of-ethics-responsibility-and-sustainability-to-equis.
  50. Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Fischer, G., Rohde, M., & Wulf, V. (2007). Community-based learning: The core competency of residential, research-based universities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 9–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition reading. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  53. Fligstein, N. (2002). The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twenty-first-century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Folger, R., & Salvador, R. (2008). Is management theory too “self-ish”? Journal of Management, 34(6), 1127–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Fotaki, M., & Prasad, A. (2015). Questioning neoliberal capitalism and economic inequality in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(4), 556–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Frank, R. H., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2003). Are political economists selfish and indoctrinated? Evidence from a natural experiment. Economic Inquiry, 41(3), 448–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits The New York Times Magazine 13 September.Google Scholar
  61. Friedman, M. (1974). Free markets for free men. Chicago, IL: Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  62. Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ghoshal, S., & Moran, P. (1996). Bad for practice: A critique of the transaction cost theory. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 13–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Giacalone, R. A., & Thompson, K. R. (2006). Business ethics and social responsibility education: Shifting the worldview. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 266–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Gohl, C. (2011). Procedural politics, the example of organised dialogue: How political participation can be designed professionally—a foundation) (Vol. 67). Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  67. Goodpaster, K. E., Maines, T. D., Naughton, M., & Shapiro, B. (2017). Using UNPRME to teach, research, and enact business ethics: Insights from the Catholic identity matrix for business schools. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3434-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2017). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3587-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Hanke, R., Kisenwether, E., & Warren, A. (2005). A scalable problem-based learning system for entrepreneurship education. In Academy of Management Proceedings, (Vol. 2005, pp. E1–E6, Vol. 1): Academy of Management.Google Scholar
  71. Hansen, U., Moosmayer, D., Bode, M., & Schrader, U. (2007). Values at work business professors’ influence on corporate values. Berlin: Logos Verlag.Google Scholar
  72. Harding, S. (1995). Can feminist thought make economics more objective? Feminist Economics, 1(1), 7–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Harrison, E. F. (1999). The managerial decision-making process (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin College Div.Google Scholar
  74. Harvey, J. B. (1974). The Abilene paradox: The management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics, 3(1), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Hayek, F. A. (2013). The constitution of liberty: The definitive edition (Vol. 17). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  76. Heath, J. (2009). The uses and abuses of agency theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(4), 497–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Hewitson, G. J. (1999). Feminist economics. Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  78. Hezri, A. A., & Dovers, S. R. (2006). Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 86–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Horvat, B. (1982). The political economy of socialism: A Marxist social theory. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.Google Scholar
  81. Huehn, M. P. (2016). Ethics as a catalyst for change in business education? Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 170–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Hühn, M. P. (2014). You reap what you sow: How MBA programs undermine ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(4), 527–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Hühn, M. P., & Dierksmeier, C. (2016). Will the real A. Smith please stand up! Journal of Business Ethics, 136(1), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Hunter, B., White, G. P., & Godbey, G. C. (2006). What does it mean to be globally competent? Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Jahn, J., & Brühl, R. (2017). How friedman’s view on individual freedom relates to stakeholder theory and social contract theory. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3353-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Jamali, D., & Abdallah, H. (2015). Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility at the core of the business school curriculum. In Handbook of research on business ethics and corporate responsibilities (pp. 275–296). Hershey: IGI GlobalGoogle Scholar
  87. James, W. (1975). Pragmatism (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Jevons, W. S. (1871). The power of numerical discrimination. Nature, 3(67), 281–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Joas, H. (1996). The creativity of action. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  90. Ju, N., & Wan, X. (2012). Optimal compensation and pay-performance sensitivity in a continuous-time principal-agent model. Management Science, 58(3), 641–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Kant, I. (2013). Immanuel Kant’s critique of pure reason. Worcestershire: Read Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  92. Kashyap, R., Mir, R., & Iyer, E. (2006). Toward a responsive pedagogy: Linking social responsibility to firm performance issues in the classroom. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 366–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Khurana, R., & Nohria, N. (2008). It’s time to make management a true profession. Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 70–77.Google Scholar
  94. King, J. E., & McLure, M. (2014). History of the concept of value. Business School-Economics University of Western Australia.Google Scholar
  95. Kloppenborg, T. J., & Baucus, M. S. Problem-based learning: Teaching project management while solving real organizational problems. In Academy of Management Proceedings, 2003 (Vol. 2003, pp. E1–E6, Vol. 1): Academy of Management.Google Scholar
  96. Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification.Google Scholar
  97. Knorr Cetina, K., & Preda, A. (2004). The sociology of financial markets. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
  100. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions: Chicago: University of Chicago press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Kulik, B. W. (2005). Agency theory, reasoning and culture at Enron: In search of a solution. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Küpper, H.-U., & Picot, A. (1999). Gegenstand der Unternehmensethik (The object of business ethics)]. Handbuch der Wirtschaftsethik (Handbook of Business Ethics), 3, 132–148.Google Scholar
  103. Kurihara, K. K. (2013). Post-keynesian economics. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  104. Lakoff, G. (2006). Whose freedom?: The battle over America’s most important idea. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  105. Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  107. Lämsä, A.-M., Vehkaperä, M., Puttonen, T., & Pesonen, H.-L. (2008). Effect of business education on women and men students’ attitudes on corporate responsibility in society. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(1), 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Lee, F. S. (2011). The pluralism debate in heterodox economics. Review of Radical Political Economics, 43(4), 540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Lenk, H. (1995). Kolloquium V Mentale Modelle-Gehirn, phänomenale Zustände und Realitätsbezug [Mental models - brain, phenomenal states and reality relations]. In: XVI. Deutscher Kongress für Philosophie (Ed.), Neue Realitäten, Herausforderung der Philosophie; Berlin, 20–24. September 1993: Vorträge und Kolloquien. Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  110. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Lin, H. Y. (2014). Bulgakov’s economic man—re-thinking the construction of capitalist economic ethics theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(2), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Lowi, T. J. (1964). American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16(4), 677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. MacMullan, T. (2013). The Fly Wheel of Society: Habit and Social Meliorism in the Pragmatist Tradition. In T. Sparrow & A. Hutchinson (Eds.), A history of habit: From Aristotle to Bourdieu. Lanham, MD: Lexington.Google Scholar
  114. Manso, G. (2011). Motivating innovation. The Journal of Finance, 66(5), 1823–1860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of political economy. New York: Maxmillan.Google Scholar
  116. Marwell, G., & Ames, R. E. (1981). Economists free ride, does anyone else?: Experiments on the provision of public goods, IV. Journal of Public Economics, 15(3), 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Mason, C., & Doherty, B. (2016). A fair trade-off? Paradoxes in the governance of fair-trade social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 451–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. McIntosh, D. (2001). The uses and limits of the model United Nations in an international relations classroom. International Studies Perspectives, 2(3), 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Metcalfe, J. S. (1998). Evolutionary economics and creative destruction. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Misangyi, V. F., & Acharya, A. G. (2014). Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1681–1705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Mooney, L. A., & Edwards, B. (2001). Experiential learning in sociology: Service learning and other community-based learning initiatives. Teaching Sociology, 29, 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Moosmayer, D. C. (2011). Professors as value agents: A typology of management academics’ value structures. Higher Education, 62(1), 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Moosmayer, D. C. (2012). A model of management academics’ intentions to influence values. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Moosmayer, D. C., & Siems, F. U. (2012). Values education and student satisfaction: German business students’ perceptions of universities’ value influences. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22(2), 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Nelson, J. K., Poms, L. W., & Wolf, P. P. (2012). Developing efficacy beliefs for ethics and diversity management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 49–68.Google Scholar
  126. Néron, P.-Y. (2010). Business and the polis: What does it mean to see corporations as political actors? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Nordhaus, W. D. (1975). The political business cycle. The Review of Economic Studies, 42(2), 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. O’Connor, J. P., Priem, R. L., Coombs, J. E., & Gilley, K. M. (2006). Do CEO stock options prevent or promote fraudulent financial reporting? Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Painter-Morland, M. (2015). Philosophical assumptions undermining responsible management education. Journal of Management Development, 34(1), 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Painter-Morland, M., Sabet, E., Molthan-Hill, P., Goworek, H., & de Leeuw, S. (2016). Beyond the Curriculum: Integrating Sustainability into Business Schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(4), 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Painter-Morland, M., & Slegers, R. (2017). Strengthening “giving voice to values” in business schools by reconsidering the “invisible hand” metaphor. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3506-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Parkes, C., Buono, A. F., & Howaidy, G. (2017). The Principles for responsible management education (PRME): The first decade-what has been achieved? The next decade-responsible management Education’s challenge for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). International Journal of Management Education, 15(2), 61–65.Google Scholar
  133. Patsuris, P. (2002). The corporate scandal sheet. Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/25/accoutingtracker.htm. Accessed 12 March 12018.
  134. Peirce, C. S. (1902). Logic as semiotic: The theory of signs. Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  135. Phillips, M. J., & Muldoon, J. P. Jr. (1996). The model united nations: A strategy for enhancing global business education. Journal of Education for Business, 71(3), 142–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Phillips, S., Blood, M., Bosland, N., Burke, L., Conrad, C., & Fernandes, J. (2004). Ethics education in business schools, Report of the ethics education task force to AACSB International Board of Directors, St. Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar
  137. Poole, D. (2001). Moving towards professionalism: The strategic management of international education activities at Australian universities and their Faculties of Business. Higher Education, 42(4), 395–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Posner, R. A. (2005). Law, pragmatism, and democracy. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  140. Raelin, J. A., & Coghlan, D. (2006). Developing managers as learners and researchers: Using action learning and action research. Journal of Management Education, 30(5), 670–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Rakesh, K., Nohria, N., & Penrice, D. (2005). Is business management a profesion. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  142. Rasche, A., & Esser, D. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65(3), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Rocha, H. O., & Ghoshal, S. (2006). Beyond self-interest revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 585–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Roemer, J. E. (1988). Analytical foundations of Marxian economic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  145. Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of pragmatism: Essays, 1972–1980. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  146. Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  147. Rubin, R. S., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2011). On the road to Abilene: Time to manage agreement about MBA curricular relevance. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1), 148–161.Google Scholar
  148. Rubinstein, A. (2006). A Sceptic’s Comment on the Study of Economics. The Economic Journal, 116(March), C1–C9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  150. Sacchetti, S. (2015). Inclusive and exclusive social preferences: A Deweyan framework to explain governance heterogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 473–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle (Vol. 46). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  154. Schwartz, B. (1987). The battle for human nature: Science, morality and modern life. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  155. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. Sison, A. B., Gregory, R., & Ferrero, I. (2017). Handbook of virtue ethics in business and management. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  157. Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nation and cause of the wealth of Nation. Glasgow Edition, Book IV.Google Scholar
  158. Smith, H. M. (2010). Subjective rightness. Social Philosophy and Policy, 27(2), 64–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
  160. Speck, B. W., & Hoppe, S. L. (2004). Service-learning: History, theory, and issues. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  161. Taras, V., Bryla, P., Gupta, S. F., Jiménez, A., Minor, M. S., Muth, T., et al. (2012). Changing the face of international business education: the X-culture project. AIB Insights, 12(4), 11–17.Google Scholar
  162. Taras, V., Caprar, D. V., Rottig, D., Sarala, R. M., Zakaria, N., Zhao, F., et al. (2013). A global classroom? Evaluating the effectiveness of global virtual collaboration as a teaching tool in management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 414–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Teehan, J. (1995). Character, integrity and Dewey’s virtue ethics. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 31(4), 841–863.Google Scholar
  164. Thomas, H., & Urgel, J. (2007). EQUIS accreditation: Value and benefits for international business schools. Journal of Management Development, 26(1), 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Trank, C. Q., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming professionalism in business education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(2), 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. Trocchia, P. J., & Berkowitz, D. (1999). Getting doctored: A proposed model of marketing doctoral student socialization. European Journal of Marketing, 33(7/8), 746–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Ungaretti, T., Thompson, K. R., Miller, A., & Peterson, T. O. (2015). Problem-based learning: Lessons from medical education and challenges for management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14(2), 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Van der Byl, C. A., & Slawinski, N. (2015). Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 54–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. Visser, M. (2017). Pragmatism, critical theory and business ethics: converging lines. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3564-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. von Mises, L. (2015). Socialism: An economic and sociological analysis. Morrisville: Lulu Press, Inc..Google Scholar
  171. Walras, L. (1909). Economics and mechanics. Economics as Discourse. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  172. Wang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Economics education and greed. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 643–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Weber, M. (1904). Die” Objektivität” sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis (‘Objectivity’ of knowledge in social science and social policy). Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik [Archive for Social Science and Social Policy], 19(1), 22–87.Google Scholar
  174. Weiss, R. M., & Miller, L. E. (1987). The concept of ideology in organizational analysis: The sociology of knowledge or the social psychology of beliefs? Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 104–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. West, C. (1989). The American evasion of philosophy: A genealogy of pragmatism. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. White, M. D. (2003). Reconciling homo economicus and John Dewey’s ethics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 10(2), 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Wicks, R. H. (1992). Schema theory and measurement in mass communication research: Theoretical and methodological issues in news information processing. Annals of the International Communication Association, 15(1), 115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Wieser, F. (1884). Über den Ursprung und die Hauptgesetze des wirthschaftlichen Werthes [On the origins and principles of economic value]. Vienna: Alfred Hölder K. u. K. Hof-und Universitäts-buchhändler.Google Scholar
  179. Williamson, O. E. (1984). The economics of governance: framework and implications. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft/Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics. 1, 195–223.Google Scholar
  180. Williamson, O. E. (2008). Outsourcing: Transaction cost economics and supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(2), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Mazei, J., & Morner, M. (2015). The paradox of diversity initiatives: When organizational needs differ from employee preferences. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2864-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. York, J. G. (2009). Pragmatic sustainability: Translating environmental ethics into competitive advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nottingham University Business School ChinaNingboChina
  2. 2.Carroll School Scholar of Corporate Responsibility, Carroll School of ManagementBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  3. 3.City University of Hong KongHong KongChina
  4. 4.University of NavarraPamplonaSpain
  5. 5.Globalization Ethics, University of TübingenInstitute for Political ScienceTübingenGermany
  6. 6.Global Ethic Institute at the University of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations