Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 156, Issue 1, pp 227–240 | Cite as

Utilitarian Traits and the Janus-Headed Model: Origins, Meaning, and Interpretation

  • Peter E. MudrackEmail author
  • E. Sharon Mason
Original Paper

Abstract

Two distinct and perhaps mutually exclusive understandings of utilitarianism have emerged in the ethics literature. Utilitarianism is typically regarded as an approach to determine ethicality by focusing on whether or not actions produce the greater good, but has also been conceptualized as a set of traits to which individuals might be predisposed. This paper is designed to clarify the meaning and implications of such utilitarian traits as “results-oriented,” “innovative,” and “a winner.” Although the Janus-headed model of ethical theory from which these traits emerged had been acknowledged by its developer as possibly misrepresenting typical views of utilitarianism, much research using these traits appears to have been conducted without clear recognition of this. If the conceptual foundation underpinning hypothesis development is disconnected from the measure used to test them, then little support for relevant predictions should emerge. A review of the literature which featured utilitarian traits generally confirmed this. This paper also explored the origins and emergence of these traits and suggested that existing evidence that these measure utilitarian ethical predispositions is not especially persuasive. Understanding what utilitarian traits do not assess is critical in order for knowledge about this potentially useful measure to advance.

Keywords

Utilitarian traits Janus-headed model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Diane Swanson, editor R. Edward Freeman, and four anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on earlier versions of the paper.

References

  1. Albert, L. S., Reynolds, S. J., & Turan, B. (2015). Turning inward or focusing out? Navigating theories of interpersonal and ethical cognitions to understand ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2), 467–484.Google Scholar
  2. Alder, G. S., Schminke, M., & Noel, T. W. (2007). The impact of individual ethics on reactions to potentially invasive HR practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(2), 201–214.Google Scholar
  3. Alder, G. S., Schminke, M., Noel, T. W., & Kuenzi, M. (2008). Employee reactions to internet monitoring: The moderating role of ethical orientation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 481–498.Google Scholar
  4. Baugher, D., & Weisbord, E. (2009). Egoism, justice, rights, and utilitarianism: Student views of classic ethical positions in business. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 1(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  5. Brady, F. N. (1985). A Janus-headed model of ethical theory: Looking two ways at business/society issues. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 568–576.Google Scholar
  6. Brady, F. N. (1990). Ethical managing: Rules and results. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Brady, F. N., & Dunn, C. P. (1995). Business meta-ethics: An analysis of two theories. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 385–398.Google Scholar
  8. Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927–940.Google Scholar
  9. Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2015). Business and society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management (9th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage.Google Scholar
  10. Christian, J. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2014). The crucial role of turnover intentions in transforming moral disengagement into deviant behavior at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(2), 193–208.Google Scholar
  11. Cojuharenco, I., Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M., & Schminke, M. (2012). Self-construal and unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 447–461.Google Scholar
  12. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.Google Scholar
  13. Cropanzano, R., & Stein, J. H. (2009). Organizational justice and behavioral ethics: Promises and prospects. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(2), 193–233.Google Scholar
  14. Curzer, H. J. (2014). Tweaking the four-component model. Journal of Moral Education, 43(1), 104–123.Google Scholar
  15. Driver, J. (2014). The history of utilitarianism. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/utilitarianism-history/.
  16. Fritzsche, D. J., & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy: An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 166–175.Google Scholar
  17. Gauch, H. G., Jr. (2003). Scientific method in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.Google Scholar
  19. Langlais, P. J., & Bent, B. J. (2014). Individual and organizational predictors of the ethicality of graduate students’ responses to research integrity issues. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(4), 897–921.Google Scholar
  20. Lau, V. P., & Wong, Y. Y. (2009). Direct and multiplicative effects of ethical dispositions and ethical climates on personal justice norms: A virtue ethics perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2), 279–294.Google Scholar
  21. Letwin, C., Wo, D., Folger, R., Rice, D., Taylor, R., Richard, B., et al. (2016). The “right” and the “good” in ethical leadership: Implications for supervisors’ performance and promotability evaluations. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(4), 743–755.Google Scholar
  22. Love, E., Staton, M., & Rotman, J. D. (2016). Loyalty as a matter of principle: The influence of standards of judgment on customer loyalty. Marketing Letters, 27(4), 661–674.Google Scholar
  23. Lowry, P. B., Posey, C., Roberts, T. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2014). Is your banker leaking your personal information? The roles of ethics and individual-level cultural characteristics in predicting organizational computer abuse. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(3), 385–401.Google Scholar
  24. McFerran, B., Aquino, K., & Duffy, M. (2010). How personality and moral identity relate to individuals’ ethical ideology. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(1), 35–56.Google Scholar
  25. Mill, J. S. (1863/1969). Utilitarianism. In J.M. Robson (Ed.), Essays on ethics, religion and society by John Stuart Mill (Vol. 10, pp. 203–259). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  26. Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Pearsall, M. J., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2011). Thick as thieves: The effects of ethical orientation and psychological safety on unethical team behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 401–411.Google Scholar
  28. Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 233–243.Google Scholar
  30. Reynolds, S. J. (2008). Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1027–1041.Google Scholar
  31. Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1610–1624.Google Scholar
  32. Reynolds, S. J., Dang, C. T., Yam, K. C., & Leavitt, K. (2014). The role of moral knowledge in everyday immorality: What does it matter if I know what is right? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 124–137.Google Scholar
  33. Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2010). In the moment: The effect of mindfulness on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 95((1, Supplement)), 73–87.Google Scholar
  34. Schminke, M. (1997). Gender differences in ethical frameworks and evaluations of others’ choices in ethical dilemmas. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(1), 55–65.Google Scholar
  35. Schminke, M. (2001). Considering the business in business ethics: An exploratory study of the influence of organizational size and structure on individual ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(4), 375–390.Google Scholar
  36. Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Miles, J. A. (2003). The impact of gender and setting on perceptions of others’ ethics. Sex Roles, 48(7–8), 361–375.Google Scholar
  37. Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Noel, T. W. (1997). The effect of ethical frameworks on perceptions of organizational justice. Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1190–1207.Google Scholar
  38. Schminke, M., & Wells, D. (1999). Group processes and performance and their effects on individuals’ ethical frameworks. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(4), 367–381.Google Scholar
  39. Schminke, M., Wells, D., Peyrefitte, J., & Sebora, T. C. (2002). Leadership and ethics in work groups: A longitudinal assessment. Group and Organization Management, 27(2), 272–293.Google Scholar
  40. Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks: The search for a common core in the business and society field. Business and Society, 47(2), 148–186.Google Scholar
  41. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2015). Consequentialism. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/consequentialism/.
  42. Smith, C. G., Sumilo, E., & Karnups, V. P. (2009). Moral judgment: A comparison of Latvian and US business persons. Baltic Journal of Management, 4(2), 188–205.Google Scholar
  43. Verbos, A. K., & Miller, J. S. (2015). When harm is at stake: Ethical value orientation, managerial decisions, and relational outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(1), 149–163.Google Scholar
  44. Wheeler, G. F., & Brady, F. N. (1998). Do public-sector and private-sector personnel have different ethical dispositions? A study of two sites. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(1), 93–115.Google Scholar
  45. Wiltermuth, S. S., Bennett, V. M., & Pierce, L. (2013). Doing as they would do: How the perceived ethical preferences of third-party beneficiaries impact ethical decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 122(2), 280–290.Google Scholar
  46. Wiltermuth, S. S., & Flynn, F. J. (2013). Power, moral clarity, and punishment in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1002–1023.Google Scholar
  47. Worden, S. (2009). A genealogy of business ethics: A Nietzschean perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(3), 427–456.Google Scholar
  48. Xu, Z. X., & Ma, H. K. (2016). How can a deontological decision lead to moral behavior? The moderating role of moral identity. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(3), 537–549.Google Scholar
  49. Zhang, L., & Gowan, M. A. (2012). Corporate social responsibility, applicants’ individual traits, and organizational attraction: A person-organization fit perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(3), 345–362.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ManagementKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.Department of Organizational Behaviour, Human Resources, Entrepreneurship and EthicsBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations