Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 131, Issue 3, pp 535–542 | Cite as

Giving Voice to Values as a Leverage Point in Business Ethics Education

Article

Abstract

The Giving Voice to Values (GVV) pedagogy and curriculum is described as an example of a powerful leverage point in the integration of business ethics and values-driven leadership across the business curriculum. GVV is post-decision-making in that it identifies an ethical course of action and asks practitioners to identify (i) who are the parties involved and what’s at stake for them; (ii) what are the main arguments (reasons and rationalizations) to be countered; and (iii) what levers that can be used to influence those who are in disagreement. The internalization of GVV’s constructs allows faculty to comfortably raise and endorse ethics as part of the natural order of business decision-making because the stakes of doing so have been normalized. Methods for introducing and using GVV in undergraduate through MBA courses are given. An illustration is given for economics courses.

Keywords

Business ethics education Economics education Giving Voice to Values Leverage points 

References

  1. Arce, D. G. (2004). Conspicuous by its absence: Ethics and managerial economics. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(3), 261–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arce, D. G. (2007). Is agency theory self-activating? Economic Inquiry, 45(4), 708–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arce, D. G. (2013). Giving Voice to Values in the economics classroom. In M. C. Gentile (Ed.), Educating for values-driven leadership across the curriculum: Giving voice to values (pp. 15–29). New York: Business Expert Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arce, D. G., & Li, S. (2011). Profits, layoffs and priorities. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(3), 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berenon, A. (2006, March 12). A cancer drug’s big price rise is cause for concern. New York Times, p. 25.Google Scholar
  6. Brinkman, J., & Sims, R. R. (2001). Stakeholder-sensitive business ethics teaching. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(2), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.Google Scholar
  8. Dees, G., & Crampton, P. (1991). Shrewd bargaining on the moral frontier: Toward a theory of morality in practice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(2), 135–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duhigg, C. (2012). The power of habit: Why we do what we do in life and business. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  10. Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. (2005). Economic language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frank, R., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (1993). Does studying economics inhibit cooperation? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(2), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gandal, N., Goccas, S., Sagiv, L., & Wrzeniewski, A. (2005). Personal value priorities of economists. Human Relations, 58(10), 1227–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gentile, M. C. (2010). Giving Voice to Values: How to speak your mind when you know what’s right. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gentile, M. C. (2013). Educating for values-driven leadership: Giving Voice to Values across the curriculum. New York: Business Expert Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gu, J., & Neesham, C. (2014). Moral identity as a leverage point in teaching business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-2028-0.Google Scholar
  19. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirshleifer, J. (1987). Disaster behavior: Altruism or alliance? In J. Hirshleifer (Ed.), Economic behavior in adversity (pp. 134–141). Brighton: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Huneke, D. H. (1985). The Moses of Rovno. New York: Dodd Mead.Google Scholar
  22. Ingols, C. (2013). Not even an option to consider: Contending with the pressure to compromise. In Presentation at ‘Giving voice to values: A faculty exchange on the GVV pedagogy, materials and applications’ conference, Babson College, 10 June 2013.Google Scholar
  23. Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands. The social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kulik, B. W. (2005). Agency theory, reasoning and culture at Enron: In search of a solution. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(4), 347–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. London, P. (1970). The Rescuers: Motivational hypotheses about Christians who saved Jews from the Nazis. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior: Social psychological studies of some antecedents and consequences (p. 250). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Marwell, G., & Ames, R. E. (1981). Economists free ride, does anyone else? Experiments in the provision of public goods IV. Journal of Public Economics, 15(3), 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems. A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54(12), 1053–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Molinsky, A., Grant, A. M., & Margolis, J. (2012). The bedside manner of homo economicus: How and why priming an economic schema reduces compassion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paharia, N., Kassam, K. S., Greene, J. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Dirty work, clean hands: The moral psychology of indirect agency. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 134–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rubinstein, A. (2006). A sceptic’s comment on the study of economics. The Economic Journal, 116(510), C1–C9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sternin, J., & Choo, R. (2000). The power of positive deviance. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 14–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ashbel Smith Professor of EconomicsUniversity of Texas at Dallas, GR 31RichardsonUSA
  2. 2.Babson CollegeArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations