Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 27, Issue 1–2, pp 79–88 | Cite as

Values in Decision-Making Processes: Systematic Structures of J. Habermas and N. Luhmann for the Appreciation of Responsibility in Leadership

  • Eberhard Schnebel
Article

Abstract

"Ethical Leadership" in modern multicultural corporations is first the consideration of different personal and cultural value systems in decision-making processes. Second, it is the assignment of responsibility either to individual or organisational causalities. The task of this study is to set the stage for a distinction between rational entities and the arbitrary preferences of individuals in economic decision making processes.

Defining rational aspects of behaviour in economics will lead to the formal structures of organisational systems, which are independent of concrete but varying “values”. Luhmann's “Theory of systems of communication” describes the internal dynamic forces of economic communication processes in terms of formal structures. On the other hand Habermas' “Theory of discourse” integrates the previous relationship between individual subjectivity and rational behaviour. Habermas gives an indication of how to separate subjective values and meaning from rational arguments in rational communication processes. The translation of these theoretical structures into practical applications for decision making processes and decision taking acts links the ethical, or value-oriented, context precisely to both individual and organisational areas of responsibility.

business ethics communication discourse ethics Habermas implicit contracts Luhmann multicultural organisations organisations values 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Akerlof, G. A.: 1970, ‘The Market of “Lemons”: Qualitative Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 84, 488–500.Google Scholar
  2. Alchian, A. and H. Demsetz: 1972, ‘Production, Information Costs and Economic Organisation’, American Economic Review 62, 777–795.Google Scholar
  3. Binmore, K.: 1992, Fun and Games: A Text on Game Theory (Lexington/Toronto).Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, J. M.: 1975, The Limits of Liberty, Between Anarchy and Leviathan (Chicago).Google Scholar
  5. Buchanan, J. M. and G. Tullock: 1982, The Calculus of Consent. Logical Foundations of Costitutional Democracy (Ann Arbor).Google Scholar
  6. Coase, R. H.: 1937, ‘The Nature of the Firm’, Economica 4, 386–405.Google Scholar
  7. Collier, Jane: 1998, ‘Theorising the Ethical Organisation’, Business Ethics Quarterly 8(4), 621–654.Google Scholar
  8. Frank, R. H.: 1988, Passions within Reason. The Strategic Role of Emotions (New York/London).Google Scholar
  9. Habermas, Jürgen: 1981, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Frankfurt a.M.).Google Scholar
  10. Habermas, Jürgen: 1984, Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zu einer Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Frankfurt a.M.).Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, Jürgen: 1993, ‘—Anerkennungskämpfe im demokratischen Rechtsstaat’, in Charles Taylor (ed.), Multikulturalismus und die Politik der Anerkennung (Frankfurt a.M.), pp. 187–196.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, Jürgen: 1997, ‘—Vom Kampf der Glaubensmächte’, in Vom sinnlichen Einruck zum symbolischen Ausdruck (Frankfurt a.M.), pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
  13. Homann, Karl: 1994, ‘—Ethik und Ökonomik. Zur Theoriestrategie der Wirtschaftsethik’, in K. Homann (ed.), Schriften des Vereins für Socialpolitik, Band 228/I (Berlin), pp. 9–30.Google Scholar
  14. Kay, J.: 1993, Foundations of Corporate Success (Oxford University Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
  15. Kreps, D. M.: 1990, Game Theory and Economic Modelling (Oxford).Google Scholar
  16. Kreps, D. M.: 1997, ‘Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives’, American Economic Review 87(2), pp. 359–364.Google Scholar
  17. Luhmann, Niklas: 1984, Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie (Frankfurt a.M.).Google Scholar
  18. Luhmann, Niklas: 1988, Die Wirtschaft der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt a.M.).Google Scholar
  19. Luhmann, Niklas: 1989, Gesellschaftsstruktur und SemantikStudien zur Wissenssoziologie der modernen Gesellschaft, Band 3 (Frankfurt a.M.).Google Scholar
  20. Luhmann, Niklas: 1990, Paradigm Lost: über die Ethische Reflexion der Moral (Frankfurt a.M.).Google Scholar
  21. Luhmann, Niklas: 1993, ‘Wirtschaftsethik-als Ethik?’, in Josef Wieland (ed.), Wirtschaftsethik und Theorie der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt a.M.), pp. 134–147.Google Scholar
  22. Schnebel, Eberhard: 1995, Ethos des Managements in Gestalt der Unternehmenskultur. Ethische Dimensionen von Managementstrukturen als Problem christlicher Berufsethik (Egelsbach).Google Scholar
  23. Schnebel, Eberhard: 1996, ‘Wissen im Management-Wissen als Intuition’ in Nikolaus Knoepffler (ed.), Wie entsteht Wissen? (München), pp. 71–90.Google Scholar
  24. Schnebel, Eberhard: 1997, Management-Werte-Organisation. Ethische Aufgaben im Management der Industrie (Wiesbaden).Google Scholar
  25. Sen, Amartya: 1992, Inequality Reexamined (Oxford).Google Scholar
  26. Sen, Amartya: 1993, ‘Markets and Freedoms: Achievements and Limitations of the Market Mechanism in Promoting Individual Freedom’, Oxford Economic Papers 45, 519–541.Google Scholar
  27. Simon, H: 1957, Models of Man. Social and Rational (New York).Google Scholar
  28. Weber, Max: 1920, ‘Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (1904–1905)’, in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie, Band I (Tübingen), pp. 17–206.Google Scholar
  29. Willliamson, O. E.: 1979, The Economic Institution of Capitalism (New York).Google Scholar
  30. Willliamson, O. E.: 1985, ‘Transaction Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations’, Journal of Law and Economics 12(2), 233–261.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eberhard Schnebel
    • 1
  1. 1.Württemberger HypoStuttgart

Personalised recommendations