Advertisement

“Speaking on Behalf of…”: Leadership Ethics and the Collective Nature of Moral Reflection

  • Andreas RascheEmail author
Commentary

Abstract

In this essay I discuss two limitations that emerge when considering Tsoukas (J Bus Ethics 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3979-y) analysis of the Academy of Management’s (AOM) initial response to the travel ban issued by President Trump in 2017. First, I suggest that any initial official response on the part of AOM would have required its leaders to “speak on behalf of” all AOM members and thus would have created a number of problems. We therefore need to take better account of others’ perspectives (“speaking with”) whenever speaking for others. For this reason I emphasize that moral imagination does not constitute a solely individual cognitive act but must be thought of as a deliberative process. Second, while Tsoukas’ analysis suggests that the leadership of AOM should have made an exception to the rule on taking public stands, I show that such exceptions need to be justified communicatively, especially when dealing with moral questions. My analysis outlines the formal and informal communication processes necessary to facilitate such justification and explores ways in which AOM’s current approach to deliberation can be improved.

Keywords

Leadership ethics Collective moral decisions Deliberation Derrida Habermas 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Editor-in-Chief, Michelle Greenwood, and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback and many helpful suggestions. Nany Urbanowicz (AOM’s Executive Director) answered some questions I had regarding Connect@AOM and a member survey that was carried out by the AOM Task Force on Taking Stands. Anita M. McGahan clarified some factual questions I had.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

References

  1. Academy of Management (AOM). (2018a). Vision, mission, objectives, and values. Retrieved July 14, 2018, from https://aom.org/About-AOM/Vision,-Mission,-Objectives—Values.aspx.
  2. Academy of Management (AOM). (2018b). AOM policy on taking stands. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from https://aom.org/About-AOM/Governance/AOM-Policy-on-Taking-Stands.aspx.
  3. Academy of Management (AOM). (2019a). About AOM. Retrieved May 22, 2019, from http://aom.org/about/.
  4. Academy of Management (AOM). (2019b). Code of ethics. Retrieved May 22, 2019, from http://aom.org/About-AOM/AOM-Code-of-Ethics.aspx.
  5. Academy of Management (AOM). (2019c). Frequently asked questions on the AOM policy on taking stands. Retrieved May 21, 2019, from http://aom.org/FAQExecutiveOrder.aspx.
  6. Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique, 20, 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alcoff, L. (2016). Feminism, speaking for others, and the role of the philosopher: An interview with Linda Martín Alcoff. Stance, 9, 85–105.Google Scholar
  8. Bowie, N. E. (1998). A Kantian theory of Capitalism. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 37–60.Google Scholar
  9. Chia, R. (1995). From modern to postmodern organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 16, 579–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1986). An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics, 97(1), 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohn, M. (2018). Supreme court ignored international law in upholding Muslim Ban. Retrieved July 23, 2018, from https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/06/supreme-court-ignored-international-law-in-upholding-muslim-ban/.
  12. Coleman, S., & Moss, G. S. (2012). Under construction: The field of online deliberation research. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Critical Management Studies (CMS) Division. (2017). Critical management studies (CMS) division response to the US executive order on travel and immigration. Retrieved July 25, 2018, from http://cms.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/CMS-Division-Travel-Ban-report-survey.pdf.
  14. Davies, T., & Gangadharan, S. P. (Eds.). (2009). Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, G. F., Anteby, M., Briscoe, F. S., Jennings, P. D., Karim, S., Kaul, A., … Zenger, T. R. (2019). Politics, governance, and leadership: What can we learn from the academy of management’s response to EO13769? Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(3), 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delbridge, R., Suddaby, R., & Harley, B. (2016). Introducing JMSSays. Journal of Management Studies, 53(2), 238–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deleuze, J. (1968/1994). Difference & repetition. London: Athlone.Google Scholar
  18. Derrida, J. (1992). Force of Law—The “Mystical Foundation of Authority”. In D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, & D. G. Carlson (Eds.), Deconstruction and the possibility of justice (pp. 3–67). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Derrida, J. (1997). The Villanova Roundtable. In J. D. Caputo (Ed.), Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A conversation with Jacques Derrida (pp. 1–30). New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Derrida, J. (2002). Negotiations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fitzpatrick, J. (1997). The international dimension of U.S. refugee law. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 15(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  22. Flynn, J. (2004). Communicative power in Habermas’s theory of democracy. European Journal of Political Theory, 3(4), 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galston, W. A. (1998). Review: Democracy and disagreement. Ethics, 108(3), 607–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gao, H., Lin, Y., & Ma, Y. (2016). Sex discrimination and female top managers: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4), 683–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement: The sense of reciprocity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, F. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Habermas, J. (1999). Introduction. Ratio Juris, 12, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1159–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hargrave, T. J. (2009). Moral imagination, collective action, and the achievement of moral outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(1), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hendriks, C. M. (2009). Deliberative governance in the context of power. Policy and Society, 28, 173–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Khan, H. (2018). Trump’s Travel Ban is Already Hurting America’s Medical System, Huffington Post. Retrieved July 23, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-khan-travel-ban_us_5b437ccfe4b0c523e2613b9e?guccounter=1.
  37. Kulick, D. (2015). The problem of speaking for others redux: Insistence on disclosure and the ethics of engagement. Knowledge Cultures, 3(6), 14–33.Google Scholar
  38. Lawlor, L., & Shotlz, J. (2016). Speaking out for others: Philosophy’s activity in Deleuze and Foucault (and Heidegger). In N. Morar, T. Nail, & D. W. Smith (Eds.), Between Deleuze and Foucault (pp. 139–159). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lugones, M. C., & Spelman, E. V. (1983). Have we got a theory for you! feminist theory, cultural imperialism and the demand for ‘The Woman’s Voice’. Women’s Studies International Forum, 6, 573–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marino, L. (2005). Speaking for others. Macalester Journal of Philosophy, 14(1), 35–45.Google Scholar
  41. McGahan, A. (2017). AOM’s President message on executive order on immigration and refugees. Retrieved July 25, 2018, from http://aom.org/About-AOM/Governance/AOM-President-s-Message-on-Executive-Order-on-Immigration—Refugees.aspx.
  42. McGahan, A. M. (2018). 2017 Presidential address—freedom in scholarship: Lessons from Atlanta. Academy of Management Review, 43(2), 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McGahan, A. (2019). My presidency of the academy of management: Moral responsibility, leadership, governance, organizational change, and strategy. Journal of Management Inquiry (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  44. McMurtrie, B. (2014). Taking political stands does not sit well with all scholarly groups. Retrieved June 14, 2019, from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Taking-Political-Stands-Does/144755.
  45. Miller, L. G. (1956). Rules and exceptions. Ethics, 66(4), 262–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nowrasteh, A. (2016). Terrorism and immigration: A risk analysis (Policy Analysis). Washington, DC: Cato Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Ortmann, G. (2010). On drifting rules and standards. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(2), 204–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ortmann, G., & Salzman, H. (2002). Stumbling giants: The emptiness, fullness, and recursiveness of strategic management. Soziale Systeme, 8(2), 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parker, M. (2003). Ethics, politics and organizing. Organization, 10(2), 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Regis, E. (1980). What is ethical egoism? Ethics, 91(1), 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ryfe, D. M. (2005). Does deliberative democracy work? Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schkade, D., Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2010). When deliberation produces extremism. Critical Review, 22(2), 227–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Setala, M. (2017). Connecting deliberative mini-publics to representative decision making. European Journal of Political Research, 56(4), 846–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Spiegel, P., & Rubenstein, L. (2017). The academic case for repealing Trump’s refugee and travel ban. The Lancet, 389(10070), 679–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stanovsky, D. (1997). Speaking as, speaking for and speaking with: The pitfalls and possibilities of men teaching feminism. Feminist Teacher, 11(1), 10–19.Google Scholar
  58. Swanson, D. L. (1999). Towards an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24, 506–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. The White House. (2017). Executive order protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (Issued 6 March 2017). Retrieved July 25, 2018, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states-2/.
  60. Tsoukas, H. (2018). Leadership, the American Academy of Management, and President Trump’s travel ban: A case study in moral imagination. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3979-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  62. Wright, S. (2009). The role of the moderator: Problems and possibilities for government-run online discussion forums. In T. Davies & S. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice (pp. 233–242). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CBS SustainabilityCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark
  2. 2.Stockholm School of EconomicsMistra Centre for Sustainable Markets (MISUM)StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations