Abstract
This paper investigates the potential contribution of sociological perspectives for business ethics teaching. After a brief and selective literature review, the paper suggests starting with sociological thinking and three aspects of it: sociological concepts, sociological imagination, and postponed judgment. After presenting two short case teaching stories (about speaking up or not) and three sociological concepts or frameworks (deviance, roles, and power), the potential inspiration value of a sociological checklist for analysing or diagnosing business ethics cases is tried out. As an open ending, some short final suggestions are made for further use of sociological perspectives in both business ethics teaching and research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In practice, such interdisciplinary, sociological, etc. understanding could be related or added explicitly to any written-down course objectives (such as reflection, holistic understanding) and/or communicated and rewarded in exam assignment texts.
More precisely: general-sociological concepts and perspectives (i.e. in contrast to more domain-specific concepts within so-called special sociologies, such as economic sociology, or sociology of organizations, of finance, of consumption, of law, of education, etc.)
Cf also note 7 below with a reference to Socratic dialogue design.
One can present classical and easy-to-understand definitions as the ones quoted here, or even better, ask the students to search the web for such definitions and then choose up to three “favorite” ones (sources such as https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120920011203AAkLvkh or online access encyclopedia entries such as http://elibrary.bsu.az/books_163/N_117.pdf; the result of such a search will most likely result in highly diverse definitions, illustrating the discipline’s diversity).
These two definitions focus on the purpose of sociology and recommend implicitly to proceed from micro- to meso- to macro-level analyses rather than the opposite, for pedagogical reasons. An additional argument in a business ethics context could be, perhaps, that macro-level coverage should be left to complementary approaches by close relatives of business ethics (such as CSR, stakeholder management, Corporate citizenship), departing from macro-level issues, such as the role or societal or global responsibility of business in society.
Two candidates for additional definitions as additional food for thought could be the following ones: “Sociology is simply defined as the scientific study of human life, social groups, whole societies and the human world as such… The scope of sociology is extremely wide… … Sociology insists that we take a broader view in order to understand why we act in the ways we do… We … discuss… sociology as a way of thinking about the world or as a different way of seeing which, once you have mastered it, becomes very difficult to avoid. In short, once a sociologist, always a sociologist… (…) Sociology has developed as a discipline in which we often set aside our personal view of the world in order to look more carefully at the influences that shape our lives and those of others…” (Giddens and Sutton 2013, pp. 4, 26) and/or “For sure, sociology is about society (the big picture) and about social relationships (even in small units). It is about what happens between human beings, about social interaction (…) I won’t try to deliver any definition of sociology… Many will answer … that we need to consider several traditions, several approaches which are based on different basic assumptions…” (Aubert 1979, pp 12, 17).
A fourth approach, perhaps, could have been a review of, e.g. Hitlin and Vaisey (2010), Abend (2010), and Godwyn (2015) with a focus on the texts’ potential relevance for present-day business ethics. Or, ideally, one could as a fifth approach stage a “Socratic dialogue” (see Brinkmann 2015) among business ethics colleagues with an academic primary socialization in sociology for sharing their reflections about the unique contribution of “their” sociology to “their” business ethics teaching and/or research.
For sociology as a discipline without conceptual discipline, well-intended instructor presentations of a common conceptual core risk to be blamed for wishful thinking (and risk an anti-thesis that sociology in reality is a rather confusing market of competing, conflicting, complementary approaches, such as actor versus system, conflict versus consensus approaches—see, e.g. Giddens and Sutton 2013, chs. 1 and 3, Collins 1994, O’Byrne 2011, Stromberger and Teichert 1992). A short list of such terms to learn, understand, and apply would most likely contain some ten to twenty of them, single ones or in pairs. Candidates in alphabetical order would be: actors and action, change, communication, conflict and consensus, control and sanctions, deviance, groups, gemeinschaft and gesellschaft, inequality, institutions, interaction, macro and microsociology, norms and expectations, organizations, power, roles, risk and uncertainty, socialization, society, systems.
See also these authors’ well-known step-by-step contextualizing of drinking a cup of coffee; see also a few youtubes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMR74ytkXKI or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FduU3EokBY.
The first user of the term was most likely Fuller 1936.
Cf for further reading C. Frade’s article of 2009, The Sociological Imagination and its Promise Fifty Years Later…, with an investigation of the actuality of Mills’ sociological imagination, accessible online here: http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/134/248.
Surprisingly, the term “sociological imagination” has only been referred to once in the Journal of Business Ethics (by Whitaker 2009).
Cf. ibid., the “characteristics” of moral imagination: “1. Beginning not with the general but with a particular situation; 2. Entailing the ability to disengage from one’s primary framework or to extend or adapt that framework in a meaningful way; 3. Dealing not merely with fantasies but with possibilities or ideals that are viable and actualizable. Such possibilities have a normative or prescriptive character; they are concerned with what one ought to do…” (for further elaboration see Werhane 1999, esp. ch. 5, with a more lengthy definition on p 93 and a conclusion on pp 107–108. In addition, see e.g. Ciulla 2004, Werhane 2002, Werhane 2008, Werhane 2014).
Cf, however, once more note 8 above about sociology as an arena of “competing, conflicting, complementary” approaches.
Or perhaps simply on “slow thinking”, see Kahnemann (2011,
Some classical pro & con positivism contributions in the German Positivismusstreit (positivism dispute) are collected, translated and published in Adorno et al. (1976) [1968]. As an additional and even more classical reference see still Horkheimer (1972) [1937]. About the positivism dispute’s predecessor, the German Werturteilsstreit (value judgment dispute), see, e.g. Weiss (2004), or Hart (1938). These two overlapping disputes seem to be less about how to conduct (e.g.) bias-free empirical research and analyse data in practice, than if and to what degree social science is and should feel responsible or co-responsible for the choice of its research topics and questions and the application of its research findings.
As an easily accessible introduction to Habermas’ work in English see the entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/habermas/.
H Ibsen, An Enemy of the People, cf http://ibsen.nb.no/id/495.0, transl. from M M Andersen, Ibsenhåndboken, Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, 1995 (story slightly shortened). The full text is found here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2446/2446-h/2446-h.htm. There is also a 2005 movie in Norwegian, rather close to Ibsen’s plot, slightly updated as a case of marketing contaminated bottled water (with Norwegian West coast scenery as a backdrop and with subtitles in English), see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0447638/).
Unpublished EBEN conference presentation, somewhat modified for anonymity.
Such an “own” story could, e.g. be about speaking up (or not) about academic dishonesty among colleagues and/or among students, in spite (or because) of reluctance to cast first stones against deviant sinners, of widespread role cynicism, of fears of harassment.
As stories with a similar size format cf Heinz' dilemma (Kohlberg 1969, cf. also Rest et al. 1986), Sam's dilemma (Stratton et al. 1981), The Estate agent’s dilemma (Brinkmann 2009b), Nora’s dilemma (Brinkmann 2009a), The apprentice dilemma (Brinkmann and Henriksen 2008). About so-called scenario or moral conflict vignettes in business ethics teaching (and research) see, e.g. Alexander and Becker (1978), Mudrack and Mason (2013a, b), Robertson (1993), Weber (1992).
Instead of deviance, role, and power one could have selected other, fewer, or (in a book without space limitations) even additional sociological concepts and frameworks, such as communication, conflict, socialization climate, and then related them to business ethics publications, see with such a potential (Beschorner 2006; Bird 1996; Brinkmann 2015; Brinkmann and Ims 2004; Dahrendorf 1959; Dahrendorf 1988; Martin and Cullen 2006; Martin and Cullen 2009; Shafer 2015), all with further references.
Normality and conformity can be, but don’t need to be two sides of the same coin: Minorities are easier to blame for violations, too frequent violations are votes against norms. On the other hand, in a “deviant” subculture (e.g. a mafia economy) deviance from larger society norms would be normal, while conformity with such larger society norms would be deviant.
Cf. Merton’s typology of “anomie” (Merton 1968), where cultural pressure to become rich and successful explains illegal but successful (“innovative”) strategies for becoming rich.
Selecting and presenting these concepts and perspectives one at a time does not mean that they can’t be combined: Being deviant can often be understood as an outsider or criminal or enemy role, and deviance can be deviance from role norms. Power can imply an ability to define norms, deviance and deviants, such as opponents or rebels (who typically try to develop counter-power). Also, there are ruler roles, and social roles can vary by power and self-determination, etc.
Cf also Crozier and Friedberg: “The phenomenon of power is simple and universal, but the concept of power is elusive and complex” (1980, p. 30), or Lukes’ description of power as an “essentially contested and complex term” (quoted by Powell in Ritzer 2007, p. 3597, also by Giddens and Sutton 2014, p. 209). Then, it seems to be proper procedure to draft how power is approached quite differently by different sociologists, see references under “Appendix III”, in addition Sadan’s overview (2004) which is accessible online: http://www.mpow.org/elisheva_sadan_empowerment_chapter1.pdf.
On a micro-level one could wonder if stakeholders have been “invented” years earlier by sociologists, as role-norm senders and as normative reference groups (see Rommetveit 1953).
Cf. “The majority never has right on its side… That is one of these social lies against which an independent, intelligent man must wage war… The majority has might on its side—unfortunately; but right it has not. I am in the right—I and a few other scattered individuals. The minority is always in the right…” (Enemy of the People, act 4, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2446/2446-h/2446-h.htm).
Most interpersonal moral conflict situations (dilemmas, temptations, obedience situations) can be described and understood convincingly as intra- and inter-role conflicts. Either one uses role terminology or other concepts and frameworks such as social interaction, the main point is that unique individuals are less interesting than exchangable individuals, e.g. as role owners and role players.
A quick EBSCO search (as of Dec 2016) identifies 42 JBE-articles with power as an author supplied keyword, 40 articles where power appears in the title, and 299 articles where power is mentioned in the abstract.
Such a sociologically inspired self-reflection could ask to what extent business ethics is a business school deviant, as a different, strange, peripheral subject, which risks being stigmatised as redundant (or as hopelessly idealistic) by colleagues and students, as useful for AACSB recognition only. Or, we could wonder how our business school colleagues define the role of business ethics faculty at a business school and in the business community: as clerics, critics, conscientious objectors, cynics, or as clowns? Or, one could try to map and discuss the relative power (or powerlessness) of business ethics at a specific business school, as a function of internally or externally justified legitimacy, least interest, or moral model power.
Cf also as a short presentation online https://sites.google.com/site/entelequiafilosofiapratica/aconselhamento-filosofico-1/the-structure-and-function-of-a-socratic-dialogue-by-lou-marinoff.
If there is time enough and if the participants know the methodology, one could even consider a preparatory dialogue, about “What are fruitful Socratic dialogue questions for investigating deviance, social roles, or power, in a business ethical context?”
When it comes to Habermas’ research motive types these can either be understood as principal, mutually exclusive alternatives, almost for research strategy positioning, or rather pragmatically, as complementary and mixable, depending on what a given situation and a given disciplinary division of labour requires. While some sociologists seem to define themselves by “useful” empirical research (in contrast to grand theorists), others prefer what they consider good theory (with open boundaries towards enlightenment and moral philosophy, e.g. in the Critical Theory or Frankfurt School tradition) to theoryless empiricism. Still other sociologists (and most likely the silent majority) take a pragmatic and intermediate position, where theoretical and empirical work are complementary and only legitimate, eventually, when combined.
Ideally and eventually, sociological research means theory-based empirical research. On the other hand, empirical research methodology is rather shared with other social sciences than unique for sociology.
Ideal–typical, i.e. artificially clear and sometimes simplified distinctions, see the text table in “Appendix iv”, prepared as an assumed teacher’s answer to an assumed student assignment, to compare moral sociology to moral philosophy on the one hand and moral psychology on the other.
Cf A Giddens’ concept of structuration, developed, e.g. in his book of 1984, The constitution of society, esp chs 1 and 6.
I.e. units such as roles, groups, situations, organizations, societies and their environments, deviance, and variables such as deviance, status, membership, power.
References
Abend, G. (2010). What’s New and What’s Old about the New Sociology of Morality. In S. Hitlin & S. Vaisey (Eds), Handbook of the Sociology of Morality. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research (pp. 561–584). New York: Springer.
Adobor, H. (2006). Exploring the role performance of corporate ethics officers. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 57–75.
Adorno, Th. W., Albert, H., Dahrendorf, R., Habermas, J., Pilot, H. & Popper, K. R (1976), (Eds)., The positivist dispute in german sociology, London: Heinemann (mostly also here: http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/positivismusstreit/contents.html; the original text collection in German was published in 1969).
Alexander, Ch S, & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 93–104.
Applbaum, A. (1999). Ethics for adversaries. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Aubert, V. (1967). Elements of sociology. London: Heinemann.
Aubert, V. (1979). Sosiologi (sociology). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Bauman, Z., & Tester, K. (2001). Conversations with Zygmunt Bauman. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beschorner, Th. (2006). Ethical theory and business practices: The case of discourse ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 127–139.
Bird, F. (1996). The muted conscience. Westport CT: Quorum.
Bostad, I. (2011). The life and learning of arne naess: Scepticism as a survival strategy. Inquiry, 54, 42–51.
Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 185–197.
Brinkmann, J. (1994). Sosiologiske grunnbegreper (Basic sociological concepts). Oslo: AdNotam.
Brinkmann, J. (2002). Business and marketing ethics as professional ethics. Concepts, approaches and typologies. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 159–177.
Brinkmann, J. (2009a). Using Ibsen in business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 11–24.
Brinkmann, J. (2009b). Putting ethics on the agenda for real estate agents. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 65–82.
Brinkmann, J. (2015). Socratic dialogue—designed in the Nelson–Heckmann tradition: A tool for reducing the theory–practice divide in business ethics. In K. J. Ims & L. J. T. Pedersen (Eds.), Business and the greater good: Rethinking business ethics in an age of crisis (pp. 240–261). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Brinkmann, J., & Henriksen, A. (2008). Vocational ethics as a subspecialty of business ethics—structuring a research and teaching field. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 623–634.
Brinkmann, J., & Ims, K. J. (2004). A conflict case approach to business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 123–136.
Brinkmann, J., & Lentz, P. (2006). Understanding insurance customer dishonesty: Outline of a moral-sociological approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 177–195.
Brown, M., & Treviño, L. (2014). Do role models matter? An investigation of role modeling as an antecedent of perceived ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 587–598.
Burrell, G. (2016). Editorial to a “virtual special issue” of the Journal of Business Ethics, accessible online here (acc 11th Dec, 2016): http://www.springer.com/philosophy/ethics+and+moral+philosophy/journal/10551.
Castells, M. (2016). A sociology of power: My intellectual journey. Annual Review of Sociology, 42, 1–19 (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-081715-074158).
Chonko, L. B., & Hunt, S. D. (1985). Ethics and marketing management: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Research, 13, 339–359.
Ciulla, J. B. (2004). Moral imagination. In encyclopedia of leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Collins, R. (1994). Four sociological traditions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (1980). Actors and systems. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press.
Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Dahrendorf, R. (1968). Homo sociologicus. Essays in the theory of society (pp. 19–87). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Dahrendorf, R. (1988). The modern social conflict. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Daub, C.-H., & Scherrer, Y. (2009). Doing the right thing right: The role of sociological research and consulting for corporate engagement in development cooperation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 573–584.
De George, R. (2010). Business ethics (7th ed.). Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River NJ.
De George, R. (2015). A response to my critics. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 789–803.
Engelstad, F. (2012). The sociology of power. In M. H. Jacobsen et al. (Eds.), Troduction to sociology: Scandinavian sensibilities (pp. 58–80). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Fogarty, T. J. (1995). Accountant ethics: A brief examination of neglected sociological dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 103–115.
Fuller, R. C. (1936). Sociological theory and social problems. Social Forces, 15, 496–502.
Giddens, A., & Sutton, P. H. W. (2013). Sociology (7th ed.). Cambridge: Polity.
Giddens, A., & Sutton, P. H. W. (2014). Essential concepts in sociology. Cambridge: Polity.
Ginsberg, M. (1937). Sociology. London: Thornton Butterworth.
Godwyn, M. (2015). Ethics and diversity in business management education. Heidelberg: Springer.
Goodpaster, K. (1992). Business ethics. In L. C. Becker & C. B. Becker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ethics (pp. 111–115). New York: Garland.
Goul Andersen, J. (1998). Borgerne og lovene. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
Grover, S. L., & Chun, H. (1994). The influence of role conflict and self-interest on lying in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 13, 295–303.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests: a general perspective, in Knowledge and human interests (trans: Shapiro, J. J.). Boston: Beacon Press, 301–317.
Hart, H. (1938). Value judgments in sociology. American Sociological Review, 3, 862–867.
Heath, J. (2008). Business ethics and moral motivation: A criminological perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 595–614.
Hendry, J. (2001). After durkheim: an agenda for the sociology of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 209–218.
Hernes, G. (1975). Makt og avmakt. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Hitlin, S., & Vaisey, S. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of the sociology of morality. New York: Springer.
Hitlin, S., & Vaisey, S. (2013). The new sociology of morality. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 51–68.
Höffding, H. (1905). On the relation between sociology and ethics. American Journal of Sociology, 10, 672–684.
Horkheimer, M. (1959). Soziologie und Philosophie. In Busch, A. & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie (Ed.), Soziologie und moderne Gesellschaft (pp. 27–38). Stuttgart: Enke.
Horkheimer, M. (1972). Traditional and critical theory. in Critical theory: Selected essays, (transl. M. O’Connell), New York: Herder & Herder, 188–243 (German original of 1937: http://lesekreis.blogsport.de/images/MaxHorkheimerTraditionelleundkritischeTheorie.pdf).
Hoyt, C., & Price, T. (2015). Ethical decision making and leadership: Merging social role and self-construal perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 531–539.
Hung, H. (2011). Directors’ roles in corporate social responsibility: A stakeholder perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 385–402.
Jones, C., Parker, M., & Ten Bos, R. (2005). For business ethics. London: Routledge.
Kahnemann, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Straus and Giroux.
Kessels, J., Boers, E., & Mostert, P. (2009). Free space. Field guide to conversations. Amsterdam: Boom.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Kvalnes, Ø. (2015), Moral reasoning at work: Rethinking ethics in organizations, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1057%2F9781137532619.
Luhmann, N. (1990). Paradigm Lost: Über die ethische Reflexion der Moral. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt (English version 1991 in Thesis Eleven 29: 82–94).
Mac Gregor, J., & Stuebs, M. (2014). The silent samaritan syndrome: Why the whistle remains unblown. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 149–164.
Martin, K., & Cullen, J. (2006). Continuities and extensions of ethical climate theory: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 175–194.
Martin, K., & Cullen, J. (2009). Appreciating the meta-analytic methodological context: Rejoinder to a reply. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 763–766.
Merton, R. K. (1957). The role-set: Problems in sociological theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 8(2), 106–120.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P. M., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in Organizations. New York: Routledge.
Michalos, A., & Poff, D. (Eds.). (2013). Citation classics from the journal of business ethics. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mudrack, P. E., & Mason, E. S. (2013a). Ethical judgments: What do we know, where do we go? Journal of Business Ethics, 115, 575–597.
Mudrack, P. E., & Mason, E. S. (2013b). Dilemmas, conspiracies, and sophie’s choice: vignette themes and ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 639–653.
Næss, A. (1968). Scepticism. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle-blowing, Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1–16.
O’Byrne, D. (2011). Introducing sociological theory. Milton Park: Routledge.
Parker, M. (2003). Business, ethics and business ethics: Critical theory and negative dialectics. In M. Alvesson & H. Willmott (Eds.), Studying management critically (pp. 197–219). London: Sage.
Phillips, N. (1991). The sociology of knowledge: Toward an existential view of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 787–795.
Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. H. (1993). Values congruence and differences between the interplay of personal and organizational value systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 341–347.
Prasad, A., & Mills, A. J. (2010). Critical management studies adn business ethics: A synthesis and three research trajectories for the coming decade. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 227–237.
Rest, J., Bebeau, M. J., & Volker, J. (1986). An overview of the psychology of morality. In J. Rest (Ed.), Moral development: Advances in research and theory (pp. 1–27). New York: Praeger.
Ritzer, G. (2007). (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology. Malden: Blackwell (http://philosociology.com/UPLOADS/_PHILOSOCIOLOGY.ir_Blackwell%20Encyclopedia%20of%20Sociology_George%20Ritzer.pdf).
Robertson, D. (1993). Empiricism in business ethics: Suggested research directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 585–599.
Rommetveit, R. (1953). Social norms and roles. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Seele, P. (2016). What makes a business ethicist? A reflection on the transition from applied philosophy to critical thinking. Journal of Business Ethics (online first, 27 April, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-016-3177-8).
Segal, L., & Lehrer, M. (2013). The conflict of ethos and ethics: A sociological theory of business people’s ethical values. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 513–528.
Shafer, W. (2015). Ethical climate, social responsibility, and earnings management. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 43–60.
Stivers, R. (1996). Towards a sociology of morality. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 16, 1–14.
Stratton, W. E., Flynn, W. R., & Johnson, G. A. (1981). Moral development and decision making: A study of student decision making. Journal of Enterprise Management, 3, 35–41.
Stromberger, P., & Teichert, W. (1992). Einführung in soziologisches Denken (An introduction to sociological thinking). Belz : Weinheim and Basel.
Turner, R. H. (1956). Role-taking, role standpoint, and reference group behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 61, 316–328.
Valentine, S., Godkin, L., & Varca, P. (2010). Role conflict, mindfulness, and organizational ethics in an education-based healthcare institution. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 455–469.
Van Luijk, H. (1994). Analyzing moral cases in European business. In B. Harvey, H. van Luijk, & H. Steinmann (Eds.), European casebook on business ethics (pp. 3–12). New York etc: Prentice Hall.
von Groddeck, V. (2011). Rethinking the role of value communication in business corporations from a sociological perspective—why organisations need value-based semantics to cope with societal and organisational fuzziness. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 69–84.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press, (transl based on the 4th 1956 German edition, German orig. 1922). The text is also available online: https://ia800305.us.archive.org/25/items/MaxWeberEconomyAndSociety/MaxWeberEconomyAndSociety.pdf.
Weber, J. (1992). Scenarios in business ethics research: Review, critical assessment, and recommendation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2, 137–159.
Weiss, J. (2004). Werturteilsstreit (value judgment dispute). In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social theory (pp. 883–884). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Werhane, P. H. (1999). Moral imagination and management decision-making. New York: Oxford University Press.
Werhane, P. H. (2002). Moral imagination and systems thinking. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 33–42.
Werhane, P. H. (2008). Mental models, moral imagination and system thinking in the age of globalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 463–474.
Werhane, P. H. (2014). Moral imagination. The wiley encyclopedia of management (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 332–334). New York: Wiley.
Werhane, P.H. & Moriarty, B. (2009). Moral imagination and management decision making. Bridge Papers, http://www.corporate-ethics.org/pdf/moral_imagination.pdf (acc 3 Dec 2016).
Whitaker, J. (2009). Mexican deaths in the Arizona desert: The culpability of migrants, humanitarian workers, governments, and businesses. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 365–376.
Acknowledgements
In addition to the anonymous reviewers, a special thanks to Ron Sims, Chandler Johnson, Øyvind Kvalnes, Tore Bakken for any valuable comments. Any remaining imperfection, esp. language-wise, is my own responsibility.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Further Readings and Resources for Students (and Instructors)
Appendix: Further Readings and Resources for Students (and Instructors)
Deviance
Giddens and Sutton (2014, 175–178).
Free online resources:
-
Ritzer 2007 (1075–1082, 1135–1140—E. Goode’s and P. Rock’s & D. Downes’ entries).
-
http://freesociologybooks.com/Introduction_To_Sociology/08_Deviance_and_Crime.php.
-
http://www.ssnpstudents.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Sociology-of-Deviant-Behavior-14th.pdf.
-
https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/chapter/chapter7-deviance-crime-and-social-control/.
Social Roles
Aubert (1967, ch. III); Dahrendorf (1968).Footnote 42
Free online resources:
-
Ritzer (2007) (395–-3956, 3959–3962—D.D. Franks’ and M.J. Hindin’s entries).
-
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Sociological_Theory/Role_Theory.
Power
Engelstad (2012), Crozier and Friedberg (1980, 30–44), Giddens and Sutton (2014, 209–212).
Free online resources:
-
Ritzer (2007) (3597-3598, 3603-3606 – J.L. Powell’s and S. Thye’s entries).
-
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/cwinship/files/moral_power–final_1.pdf.
-
Castells 2016.
Draft of an Ideal-Typological Comparison with Moral Philosophy and Moral Psychology
Moral philosophy | Moral sociology | Moral psychology |
|---|---|---|
Normative ethics (study of morality) | Descriptive ethics (study of relational morality) | Descriptive ethics (study of individual morality) |
Ought: investigates good principles, reasons and justifications (why something is right or wrong) | Is: investigates social/shared norms, roles, situations, ideologies, social and group behaviours | Is: Investigates individual attitudes, values, conscience, behaviours, decisions (less or more socially influenced) |
Questioned and reflected and perhaps agreed-on morality | Unquestioned and more or less shared morality | Internalized morality (or not) |
Universalist, intercultural (mainstream) | Particularist, subcultural (mainstream) | Universalist, intercultural (mainstream) |
Assumption of indeterminism/autonomy and responsibility, free will. Moral luck as an issue | Heteronomy/limits to autonomy, conventional morality is most interesting | Heteronomy/limits to autonomy, pre- and post-conventional (mature) morality most interesting |
Individual choices, dilemmas more interesting than temptations and obedience | Inter-individual moral conflicts, role conflict handling, legitimacy/obedience to power most interesting | Individual choices, individual handling of temptations and obedience most interesting |
Ethics is potentially furthering conflict resolution/consensus | Moral contents are potentially furthering interpersonal conflict | Moral contents are potentially furthering intrapersonal conflict |
Moral judgment (focus on good criteria/reasons, reflective equilibrium, coherence of arguments)a | Description and understanding of social/societal complexity take time and delay judgment | Description and understanding of intra- and inter-individual complexity take time and delay judgment |
Good dialogue can produce convincing/shared justifications | Repetition and habitualization can create moral normalization | Desire for positive self-conception furthers dubious justification: moral neutralization |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brinkmann, J. The Potential Use of Sociological Perspectives for Business Ethics Teaching. J Bus Ethics 156, 273–287 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3636-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3636-x