Advertisement

The Liberal Paradigm

  • Claus Dierksmeier
Chapter
  • 389 Downloads
Part of the Humanism in Business Series book series (HUBUS)

Abstract

This chapter begins from the premise that we cannot go back behind the insights of the Enlightenment era. The plurality of convictions in the contemporary world determines—factually as well as normatively—the way we conceptualize ethics at present. No longer is there but one conception of “the good” for each and every one. People deserve the chance to make up their own minds about the values that guide their lives. With individual freedom as its base, the “Liberal Paradigm,” does not, however, exclude teleological orientation, as demonstrated by the ethics of Immanuel Kant. After a brief overview of Kant’s ethics, the explication of the liberal paradigm proceeds by establishing a distinction between quantitative and qualitative concepts of freedom. The application of these conceptions to current management conundrums—in the areas of corporate strategy and culture, leadership, and organizational governance—helps to separate the wheat from the chaff in the field of contemporary management theories.

Keywords

Liberty Responsibility Quantitative freedom Qualitative freedom 

Bibliography

  1. Altman, Matthew C. 2007. The decomposition of the corporate body: What Kant cannot contribute to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 74(3): 253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris, Chris. 1964. Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, Chris. 1973a. Some limits of rational man organizational theory. Public Administration Review 33(3): 253–267.Google Scholar
  4. Argyris, Chris. 1973b. Organization man: Rational and self-actualizing. Public Administration Review 33(4): 354–357.Google Scholar
  5. Army, U. 1973. Military leadership. Washington, DC: U.S. G.P.O.Google Scholar
  6. Bakan, J. 2004. The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  7. Bass, B.M. 1998. Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Bass, Bernard M., and Bruce J. Avolio. 1994. Transformational leadership and organizational culture. International Journal of Public Administration 17(3–4): 541–554.Google Scholar
  9. Baxley, Anne Margaret. 2003. Does Kantian virtue amount to more than continence? The Review of Metaphysics 56(3): 559–586.Google Scholar
  10. Beiner, Ronald. 1992. What’s the matter with liberalism? Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Berlin, Isaiah. 1970. Four essays on liberty, vol. 969. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Berlin, Isaiah. 2002. Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blesenkemper, Klaus. 1987. “Publice age” Studien zum Öffentlichkeitsbegriff bei Kant. Frankfurt a. M.: Haag & Herchen.Google Scholar
  14. Bowie, Norman E. 1999. Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Brickson, Shelley L. 2005. Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly 50(4): 576–609.Google Scholar
  16. Brickson, Shelley L. 2007. Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review 32(3): 864–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brugger, Walter. 1964. Kant und das höchste Gut. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung H. 1: 50–61.Google Scholar
  18. Burns, J.M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  19. Caney, Simon. 2002. Cosmopolitanism and the law of peoples. Journal of Political Philosophy 10(1): 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carter, Ian, Matthew H. Kramer, and Hillel Steiner. 2007. Freedom: A philosophical anthology. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Charreaux, Gérard, and Philippe Desbrières. 2001. Corporate governance: Stakeholder value versus shareholder value. Journal of Management and Governance 5(2): 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Collier, Jane, and Rafael Esteban. 1999. Governance in the participative organisation: Freedom, creativity and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 21(2–3): 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cragg, Wesley. 2002. Business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(02): 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis, James H., F. David Schoorman, and Lex Donaldson. 1997. Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review 22(1): 20–47.Google Scholar
  25. Dewey, John. 1968. Liberty and social control. In Problems of men, 111–126. New York: Ames.Google Scholar
  26. Dewey, John. 2000 (1963). Liberalism and social action. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  27. Dierksmeier, Claus. 1998. Das Noumenon Religion: eine Untersuchung zur Stellung der Religion im System der praktischen Philosophie Kants. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dierksmeier, Claus. 2004. John Rawls und Kants langer Schatten. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 4: 1297–1322.Google Scholar
  29. Dierksmeier, Claus. 2007. Qualitative oder quantitative Freiheit? Rechtsphilosophische Hefte XII: 107–119.Google Scholar
  30. Dierksmeier, Claus. 2010. Welche Freiheit? Liberal, Vierteljahreshefte für Politik und Kultur 4: 9–13.Google Scholar
  31. Dierksmeier, Claus, ed. 2011a. Humanistic ethics in the age of globality. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Dierksmeier, Claus. 2011b. Kant’s humanist ethics. In Humanistic ethics in the age of globality, 79–93. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Dierksmeier, Claus. 2013. Kant on virtue. Journal of Business Ethics 113(4): 597–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dierksmeier, Claus. 2016. Qualitative Freiheit. Bielefeld: Transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dierksmeier, Claus, and Michael Pirson. 2010. The modern corporation and the idea of freedom. Philosophy of Management 9(3): 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. DiPiazza, S.A. 2002. Building public trust- the future of corporate reporting. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. DiTomaso, N., R. Parks-Yancy, and C. Post. 2003. Structure, relationships, and community responsibility. Management Communication Quarterly 17: 143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Donaldson, Tom. 2003. Editor’s comments: Taking ethics seriously—A mission now more possible. Academy of Management Review 28(3): 363–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Donaldson, L., and J.H. Davis. 1991. Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management 16(1): 49–64.Google Scholar
  40. Dubbink, Wim, and Luc van Liedekerke. 2009. A neo-Kantian foundation of corporate social responsibility. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12(2): 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Düsing, Klaus. 1971. Das Problem des höchsten Gutes in Kants praktischer Philosophie. Kant-Studien 62(1–4): 5–42.Google Scholar
  42. Dworkin, Ronald. 1989. Liberal community. California Law Review 77(3): 479–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review 14(1): 57–74.Google Scholar
  44. Elkington, John, and Pamela Hartigan. 2008a. The power of unreasonable people: How social entrepreneurs create markets that change the world. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  45. Elkington, John, and Pamela Hartigan. 2013. The power of unreasonable people: How social entrepreneurs create markets that change the world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  46. Etzioni, Amitai. 2004. The common good. Cambridge/Malden: Polity.Google Scholar
  47. Fama, Eugene F. 1980. Agency problems and the theory of the firm. The Journal of Political Economy 88(2): 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Flikschuh, K. 2007. Freedom: Contemporary liberal theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  49. Freeman, R. Edward. 2004. The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik 5(3): 228.Google Scholar
  50. Freeman, R. Edward, Andrew C. Wicks, and Bidhan Parmar. 2004. Stakeholder theory and ‘the corporate objective revisited’. Organization Science 15(3): 364–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1986 (1967). The new industrial state. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  53. Galston, William. 1982. Defending liberalism. American Political Science Review 76(03): 621–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Gehrke, Pat J. 2002. Turning Kant against the priority of autonomy: Communication ethics and the duty to community. Philosophy and Rhetoric 35(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Goshal, Sumantra. 2005. Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education 4(1): 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Gutmann, Amy. 1985. Communitarian critics of liberalism. Philosophy and Public Affairs Princeton 14(3): 308–322.Google Scholar
  57. Habermas, Jürgen. 1991. The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Habermas, Jürgen. 1995. Reconciliation through the public use of reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s political liberalism. The Journal of Philosophy 92(3): 109–123.Google Scholar
  59. Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. Three normative models of democracy. In The inclusion of the other, ed. C. Cronin and P.D. Greiff. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Hackenberg, Helga, and Stefan Empter. 2011. Social Entrepreneurship und Social Business: Phänomen, Potentiale, Prototypen – Ein Überblick. In Social Entrepreneurship – Social Business: Für die Gesellschaft unternehmen, ed. H. Hackenberg & S. Empter, 11–26. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  61. Hart, Stuart L. 2005. Capitalism at the crossroads: The unlimited business opportunities in solving the world’s most difficult problems. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  62. Harvey, David. 2005. A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Haugh, Helen. 2007. New strategies for a sustainable society: The growing contribution of social entrepreneurship. Business Ethics Quarterly 17(04): 743–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hayek, Friedrich A. von. 1970. Constitution of liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  65. Holmes, S. 1989. The permanent structure of antiliberal thought. In Liberalism and the moral life, ed. N.L. Rosenblum, 227–253. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Ingram, D. 2003. Between political liberalism and postnational cosmopolitanism: Towards an alternative theory of human rights. Political Theory 31(3): 359–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Jackson, I., and J. Nelson. 2004. Profits with principles- seven strategies for delivering value with values. New York: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  68. Jensen, Michael C. 1999. Chapter 3: Applications of the Jensen Meckling concept of freedom. In Freedom, capitalism and human behavior. June 30. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=638801
  69. Jensen, Michael C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2): 235–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kant, Immanuel. 1900. Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 1–22, herausgegeben von der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 23 Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, vol. 24ff. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (et seqq.).Google Scholar
  71. Kaptein, Muel, and Rob Van Tulder. 2003. Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review 108(2): 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kaulbach, Friedrich. 1996. Immanuel Kants “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten”: Interpretation und Kommentar, Werkinterpretationen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  73. Kersting, Wolfgang. 2004. Kant über Recht. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
  74. Kimakowitz, Ernst von. 2011. Humanistic management in practice. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  75. Korsgaard, Christine M. 1996. Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lewin, K. 1935. A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  77. MacIntyre, Andrew. 1988. Whose justice? Which rationality? Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  78. Macus, Mark. 2002. Towards a comprehensive theory of boards–conceptual development and empirical exploration. Dissertation, Universität St. Gallen.Google Scholar
  79. Manz, C.C. 1986. Self-leadership: Toward and expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management Review 11: 585–600.Google Scholar
  80. Manz, C.C., and H.P.J. Sims. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves. The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 32: 106–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Manz, C.C., and H.P.J. Sims. 1993. Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are building high performance companies. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  82. Marx, Karl. 1906. Capital. New York: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
  83. May, Steve. 2013. Case studies in organizational communication: Ethical perspectives and practices. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  84. Mintzberg, Henry, Robert Simons, and Kunal Basu. 2002. Beyond selfishness. MIT Sloan Management Review 44(1): 67–74.Google Scholar
  85. Mises, Ludwig von. 1927. Liberalismus. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
  86. Muth, M.M., and Lex Donaldson. 1998. Stewardship theory and board structure: A contingency approach. Corporate Governance: An International Review 6(1): 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Nedelsky, J. 1989. Reconceiving autonomy: Sources, thoughts and possibilities. In Law and the community, ed. A.C. Hutchinson and L.J.M. Green, 219–252. Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
  88. Nguyen-Huy, Q. 2000. Do humanistic values matter? Academy of management best paper proceedings, A1-A6. ODC.Google Scholar
  89. Nicholls, A. 2006. Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  91. Nussbaum, Martha C. 1998. Plato’s republic: The good society and the deformation of desire. Washington, DC: Library of Congress.Google Scholar
  92. O’Neill, Onora. 2002. Justice, gender, and international boundaries. In Global justice and transnational politics. Essays on the moral and political challenges of globalization, ed. C. Pablo De Greiff and C. Cronin, 303–323. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  93. Patterson, Orlando. 1999. Freedom in the making of western culture. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  94. Pirson, Michael A., and Ellen Langer. 2015. Developing the langer mindfulness scale. Academy of Management Proceedings 15(1): 154–159.Google Scholar
  95. Politis, John D. 2001. The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 22(8): 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Powell, Brian K. 2006. Kant and Kantians on “the normative question”. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9(5): 535–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rangan, K., J.A. Quelch, G. Herrero, and B. Barton. 2007. Business solutions for the global poor: Creating social and economic value. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  98. Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Rifkin, Jeremy. 2004. The European dream. How Europe’s vision the future is quietly eclipsing the American dream. New York: Polity.Google Scholar
  100. Sandel, Michael. 1982. Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Scherer, A.G., and G. Palazzo. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate social responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review 32(4): 1096–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Sen, Amartya. 2002. Rationality and freedom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Sharp Paine, Lynn. 2003. Value shift: Why companies must merge social and financial imperatives to achieve superior performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  105. Simon, R., H. Mintzberg, and K. Basu. 2002. Beyond selfishness. Sloan Management Review 44(1): 67–74.Google Scholar
  106. Smith, N. Craig. 2003. Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review 45(4): 52–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Speight, C. Allen. 1997. The “metaphysics” of morals and Hegel’s critique of Kantian ethics. History of Philosophy Quarterly 14(4): 379–402.Google Scholar
  108. Stroud, Scott R. 2002. Defending Kant’s ethics in light of the modern business organization. Teaching Ethics 2(2): 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sundaram, Anant K., and Andrew C. Inkpen. 2004. The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science 15(3): 350–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Taylor, Charles. 1999. Negative Freiheit? – Zur Kritik des neuzeitlichen Individualismus. Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  111. Thielemann, Ulrich. 2005. Compliance und Integrity-Zwei Seiten ethisch integrierter Unternehmenssteuerung*: Lektionen aus dem Compliance-Management einer Großbank. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik 6(1): 31.Google Scholar
  112. Timmermann, Jens. 2008. Sittengesetz und Freiheit: Untersuchungen zu Immanuel Kants Theorie des freien Willens. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  113. Treviño, Linda K., and Katherine Nelson. 2010. Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  114. Wolf, S. 1990. Freedom within Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and the Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claus Dierksmeier
    • 1
  1. 1.Weltethos-Institut University of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations