Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Moral Pragmatism as a Bridge Between Duty, Utility, and Virtue in Managers’ Ethical Decision-Making

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The decline of empirical research on ethical decision-making based on ethical theories might imply a tacit consensus has been reached. However, the exclusion of virtue ethics, one of the three main normative ethical theories, from this stream of literature calls this potential consensus into question. This article investigates the role of all three normative ethical theories—deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics—in ethical decision-making of corporate executives. It uses virtue ethics as a dependent variable thus studying the interconnectivity of all three normative ethical theories in specific circumstances. We find that managers use different ethical theories in different circumstances (business vs. private life, formal vs informal ethical leadership, etc.). A predictive model of ethical decision-making, however, cannot be established. We also find that only a limited number of variables influence the choice of ethical theory, which leans business ethics towards postmodern management paradigm. We suggest that moral pragmatism could provide the answer to ethical decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, J., & Davis, D. (1993). Assessing some determinant effects of ethical consulting behavior: The case of personal and professional values. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(6), 449–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2006). Critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organisation studies. In S. R. Clegg & C. Hardy (Eds.), Studying organization: Theory & method (pp. 185–211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amirshahi, M., Shirazi, M., & Ghavami, S. (2014). The relationship between salespersons’ ethical philosophy and their ethical decision-making process. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 3(1), 11–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33(124), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (2000). Nicomachean ethics (ed. and trans by Crisp, R.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Arjoon, S. (2000). Virtue theory as a dynamic theory of business. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(2), 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arjoon, S. (2007). Ethical decision-making: A case for the triple font theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 71(4), 395–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. G., Audi, R., & Zwolinski, M. (2010). Recent work in ethical theory and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 559–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babbie, E. (1986). The Practice of social research (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badaracco, J. L. (2006). Questions of character: Illuminating the heart of leadership through literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, K. D. (1982). Methods of social research. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, N. A., Hargreaves, J., & Gillibrand, W. P. (2018). Nurses’ contributions to the resolution of ethical dilemmas in practice. Nursing Ethics, 25(2), 230–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, D. C. (2018). Plato on virtuous leadership: An ancient model for modern business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(3), 251–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011a). Ethical breakdowns. Harvard Business Review, 89(4), 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011b). Blind spots: Why we fail to do what’s right and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. L., & Bowie, N. E. (1993). Ethical theory and business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. C. (1992). Places for pluralism. Ethics, 102(4), 707–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedell-Avers, K. E., Hunter, S. T., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Conditions of problem-solving and the performance of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders: A comparative experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, M. K., & Westphal, J. D. (2006). Surveying the corporate elite: Theoretical and practical guidance on improving response rates and response quality in top management survey questionnaires. In D. Ketchen & D. Bergh (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. 3, pp. 37–55). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. (1789). An introduction to the principles of morals. London: Athlone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, F. N., & Wheeler, G. E. (1996). An empirical study of ethical predispositions. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 927–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, J. K. (1988). Virtue ethics, caring, and nursing. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice, 2(2), 87–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boatright, J. R. (1993). Ethics and the conduct of business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2019). Nine lies about work: A freethinking leader’s guide to the real world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callicott, J. B. (1990). The case against moral pluralism. Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 99–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. (2011). Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(S1), 22–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D., & Cowton, C. J. (2015). Method issues in business ethics research: Finding credible answers to questions that matter. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(S1), S3–S10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerny, C. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C., & Ananthram, S. (2019). Religion-based decision making in Indian multinationals: A multi-faith study of ethical virtues and mindsets. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(3), 651–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, R. (2005). Ethical character and virtue of organizations: An empirical assessment and strategic implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 57(3), 269–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayton, S. (2019). 6 signs your corporate culture is a liability. Harvard Business Review. Published online on December 05, 2019.

  • Cohen, J. R., Pant, L. W., & Sharp, D. J. (1993). Culture-based ethical conflicts confronting multinational accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 7(3), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. (2015). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: An introduction. In For Robert Cooper (pp. 149–175). Routledge.

  • Collier, P. (2018). The future of capitalism: Facing the new anxieties. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corey, C. M., Fok, L. Y., & Payne, D. M. (2014). Cross-cultural differences in values and conflict management: A comparison of US and Puerto Rico. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict, 18(2), 59–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craft, J. L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004–2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 221–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M., Mazutis, D., & Seijts, G. (2013). In search of virtue: The role of virtues, values and character strengths in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 567–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyriac, K., & Dharmaraj, R. (1994). Machiavellianism in Indian management. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(4), 281–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagger, R., & Lefkowitz, D. (2014). Political obligation. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/political-obligation/.

  • Dancy, J. (2004). Ethics without principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. (1994). When integration fails: The logic of prescription and description in business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(2), 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Werhane, P. (1993). Ethical issues in business. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper & Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (1967). The effective decision (pp. 92–98). Jan/Feb: Harvard Business Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enderle, G. (Ed.). (1999). International business ethics: Challenges and approaches. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • England, G. W. (1967). Personal value systems of American managers. Academy of Management Journal, 10(1), 53–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eweje, G., & Brunton, M. (2010). Ethical perceptions of business students in a New Zealand university: Do gender, age and work experience matter? Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(1), 95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(3), 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fieser, J., & Lillegard, N. (2002). A historical introduction to philosophy: Texts and interactive guides. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontrodona, J., Sison, A. J. G., & de Bruin, B. (2013). Editorial introduction: Putting virtues into practice. A challenge for business and organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 563–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foot, P. (1978). Virtues and vices and other essays in moral philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethical decision-making: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foreman, D. M. (1999). The family rule: A framework for obtaining ethical consent for medical interventions from children. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25(6), 491–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forst, R. (2012). The right to justification: Elements of a constructivist theory of justice. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forte, A. (2004). Business ethics: A study of the moral reasoning of selected business managers and the influence of organizational ethical climate. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(2), 167–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraedrich, J., & Ferrell, O. C. (1992). Cognitive consistency of marketing managers in ethical situations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(3), 245–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederiksen, N., Jensen, O., Beaton, A. E., & Bloxom, B. (1972). Prediction of organizational behavior. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furler, J. S., & Palmer, V. J. (2010). The ethics of everyday practice in primary medical care: Responding to social health inequities. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 5, 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, S., & Stephenson, H. B. (1993). Decision rules used by male and female business students in making ethical value judgments: Another look. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(3), 227–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gergen, K. J., & Thatchenkery, T. J. (1996). Developing dialogue for discerning differences. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(4), 428–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, C. M., Vance, K. S., & Paik, Y. (2007). Linking linear/nonlinear thinking style balance and managerial ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(2), 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadjicharalambous, C., & Shi, Z. (2015). Attitudes toward ethical sensitivity: Implications related to gender identity and personality. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 18(3), 31–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, W. H., & Sims, H. P. (1978). Some determinants of unethical decision behavior: An experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 451–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M., & Schüssler, I. (1992). Platon, sophistes. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinman, L. M. (2012). Ethics: A pluralistic approach to moral theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, J. A. (2010). Ethical perception: Are differences between ethnic groups situation dependent? Business Ethics: A European Review, 19(2), 154–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, B. W., & Little, M. (2000). Moral particularism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., & Weber, E. U. (1999). Cross-national differences in risk preference and lay predictions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(2), 165–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hursthouse, R. (1999). On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, A., Leka, S., & Zwetsloot, G. I. (2018). Managing health, safety and well-being: Ethics, responsibility and sustainability. Amsterdam: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. E., & Meara, N. M. (1990). Ethics and the professional practice of psychologists: The role of virtues and principles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(2), 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Massey, T. (2003). Their jobs versus what they are getting. Local Government Management., 20(2), 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1788). Critique of practical reason. Raleigh, NC: Generic NL Freebook Publisher and eBook Collection (EBSCOhost).

  • Kawall, J. (2009). Virtue theory, ideal observers, and the supererogatory. Philosophical Studies, 146(2), 179–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalid, K., Eldakak, S. E., & Loke, S. P. (2017). A structural approach to ethical reasoning: The integration of moral philosophy. Academy of Strategic Management Journal., 16(1), 81–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, D., & O’Leary, M. (2006). Leadership, Ethics and Responsibility to others. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(2), 125–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development. Moral Education, 1(51), 23–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kujala, J. (2001). A multidimensional approach to Finnish managers’ moral decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3–4), 231–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary political philosophy: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehnert, K., Craft, J., Singh, N., & Park, Y. H. (2016). The human experience of ethics: A review of a decade of qualitative ethical decision-making research. Business Ethics: A European Review, 25(4), 498–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehnert, K., Park, Y. H., & Singh, N. (2015). Research note and review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: Boundary conditions and extensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 129(1), 195–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemoine, G. J., Hartnell, C. A., & Leroy, H. (2019). Taking stock of moral approaches to leadership: An integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 148–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing ethical decision-making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louden, R. B. (1984). On some vices of virtue ethics. American Philosophical Quarterly, 21(3), 227–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. (1984). Does applied ethics rest on a mistake? The Monist, 67(4), 498–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. C. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques, P. A., & Azevedo-Pereira, J. (2009). Ethical ideology and ethical judgments in the Portuguese accounting profession. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(2), 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, E. (2018). Value pluralism. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/value-pluralism/.

  • McDevitt, R., Giapponi, C., & Tromley, C. (2007). A model of ethical decision making: The integration of process and content. Journal of Business Ethics, 73(2), 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, G., & Pak, P. C. (1996). It’s all fair in love, war, and business: Cognitive philosophies in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(9), 973–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mencl, J., & May, D. R. (2009). The effects of proximity and empathy on ethical decision-making: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 201–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, S. M. (1996). Aristotelian virtue and business ethics education. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(8), 827–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, L. A. (2015). Integrity and virtue: The forming of good character. The Linacre Quarterly, 82(2), 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia ethica. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C. (2008). Moral disengagement in processes of organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Antes, A. L., Caughron, J. J., & Friedrich, T. L. (2008). Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 144–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., & Van Doorn, J. R. (2001). The leadership of pragmatism: Reconsidering Franklin in the age of charisma. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 279–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. E. (1999). Character and virtue ethics in international marketing: An agenda for managers, researchers and educators. Journal of Business Ethics, 18(1), 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubert, M. J., Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. (2009). The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: Evidence from the field. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(2), 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, W. (2013). Business ethics. Retrieved from https://www.hbs.edu/.../Norman,%20Business%20Ethics,%20IntEncycEthics.pdf.

  • O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, J., & Cocking, D. (2001). Virtue ethics and professional roles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paik, Y., Lee, J. M., & Pak, Y. S. (2019). Convergence in international business ethics? A comparative study of ethical philosophies, thinking style, and ethical decision-making between US and Korean managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(3), 839–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paine, L. S. (1994). Law, ethics, and managerial judgment. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 12, 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2005). Critical thinking and the art of substantive writing, part I. Journal of Developmental Education, 29(1), 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, E. D. (2002). Professionalism, profession and the virtues of the good physician. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine, 69(6), 378–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A Handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piccolo, R. F., Bono, J. E., Heinitz, K., Rowold, J., Duehr, E., & Judge, T. A. (2012). The relative impact of complementary leader behaviors: Which matter most? The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 567–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premeaux, S. R. (2004). The current link between management behavior and ethical philosophy. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(3), 269–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Nohria, N. (2018). How CEOs manage time. Harvard Business Review, 96(4), 42–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D. M., & Fernandes, M. F. (1991). The social desirability response bias in ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(11), 805–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (2006). The Trouble with particularism (Dancy’s version). Mind, 115(457), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricouer, P. (1990). Oneself as another (K. Blamey, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggio, R. E., Zhu, W., Reina, C., & Maroosis, J. A. (2010). Virtue-based measurement of ethical leadership: The Leadership Virtues Questionnaire. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 235–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, D. C., Voegtlin, C., & Maak, T. (2017). Business ethics: The promise of neuroscience. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(4), 679–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, S. B., & Buchholz, R. A. (2007). Toward new directions in business ethics: Some pragmatic pathways. In R. E. Frederick (Ed.), A companion to business ethics (pp. 112–127). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1248–1264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schüller, B. (1973). Die Begründung sittlicher Urteile: Typen ethischer Argumentation in der katholischen Moraltheologie. Ostfildern: Patmos-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S. (2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(4), 755–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer-Landau, R. (2015). The fundamentals of ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sher, G. (2012). Ethics: Essential readings in moral theory. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers’ words and deeds as a research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1979). Practical ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. (2003). Victims of circumstances? A defense of virtue ethics in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(1), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soltes, E. (2016). Why they do it: Inside the mind of the white-collar criminal. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, N. N. (2008). The fourth quadrant: A map of the limits of statistics. Retrieved from https://www.edge.org/conversation/nassim_nicholas_taleb-the-fourth-quadrant-a-map-of-the-limits-of-statistics.

  • Thaler, R. H., & Ganser, L. J. (2015). Misbehaving: The Making of behavioral economics. New York: WW Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviňo, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2007). Managing business ethics. Hoboken. NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vance, C. M., White, J. A., Groves, K. S., Paik, Y., & Guo, L. (2016). Comparing thinking style and ethical decision-making between Chinese and U.S. students. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 13, 117–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbeke, W., Ouwekerk, C., & Peelan, E. (1996). Exploring the contextual and individual factors on ethical decision making of salespeople. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(11), 1175–1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, A. D. M. (1989). Virtue and character. Philosophy, 64(249), 349–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, L. D., Onorato, M., & Simms, W. V. K. (2016). Ethical sensitivity and its relationship to personality and area of study. Advanced Management Journal, 81(2), 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenz, P. S. (1993). Minimal, moderate, and extreme moral pluralism. Environmental Ethics, 15(1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weston, A. (1991). On Callicott’s case against moral pluralism. Environmental Ethics, 13(3), 283–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetstone, J. T. (2001). How virtue fits within business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 33(2), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisler, J. C. (2018). US CEOs of SBUs in luxury goods organizations: A mixed methods comparison of ethical decision-making profiles. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 443–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, C. (2011). Theory of planned behavior and ethics theory in digital piracy: An integrated model. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social Studies, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Matej Drašček & Dana Mesner Andolšek

  2. Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Adriana Rejc Buhovac

Authors
  1. Matej Drašček
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adriana Rejc Buhovac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dana Mesner Andolšek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matej Drašček.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Research Involving Human and Animal Rights

The article does not contain any studies with human and animals participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Scenarios with ethical theories in parentheses following the answer (not shown in actual survey):

Private life

  1. 1.

    At work, you have organised a very important meeting, which is important not only for the organisation but also for your career. Unfortunately, you did not notice that you also have family obligations, which you cannot avoid. Assume that you chose your family obligations. You would make this decision because:

    • Family obligations always take priority over business obligations. (deontology)

    • The fulfilment of family obligations will bring the greatest good/happiness to the most people affected by the decision. (utilitarianism)

    • Being a good parent/spouse is the most important value in my life. (virtue ethics)

      Business/professional life

  2. 2.

    Your organisation is in trouble and you have to lay off many colleagues (assume that you have already done everything that was formally or informally possible, including talking with employees, cost optimisation and lowering investments, so there are no other options). To make a decision about who to lay off, you will use the following as a guiding principle

    • The added value that the employee brings to the organisation. (utilitarianism)

    • The legal criteria for layoffs. (deontology)

    • The work attitude of the employee. (virtue ethics)

      General ethical dilemma

  3. 3.

    When you find yourself in an ethical dilemma, your main decision-making principle is:

    • The golden mean (not too much, not too little). (virtue ethics)

    • The greatest good for the greatest number of people. (utilitarianism)

    • Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (deontology)

      Refusing to do an unethical act

  4. 4.

    The reason why you would NOT do an unethical act is:

    • It is simply wrong. (deontology)

    • Only in actions is a person’s real ethical character revealed. (virtue ethics)

    • Because of my act, a lot of people would suffer. (utilitarianism)

      Ethical leadership—leading colleagues.

  5. 5.

    Your subordinate has lied to you. Nobody else has found out about the lie except you, and it does not have any consequences for the organisation or its work. Assume that you will give a disciplinary notice to the employee. You would do so because the employee:

    • Did indirect damage to the organisation. (utilitarianism)

    • Did not meet his work obligations as defined by the labour contract. (deontology)

    • Showed his true character to be one you cannot trust anymore. (virtue ethics)

      Informal ethical leadership

  6. 6.

    Your friend or colleague made an ethical mistake. What advice would you give him/her?

    • We learn from mistakes, so you will do better next time. (virtue ethics)

    • As long as nobody got hurt, everything is OK. (utilitarianism)

    • It is important is that you have good intentions, no matter the consequences. (deontology)

Appendix 2

See Table 13

Table 13 Characteristics of interviewed directors
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Drašček, M., Rejc Buhovac, A. & Mesner Andolšek, D. Moral Pragmatism as a Bridge Between Duty, Utility, and Virtue in Managers’ Ethical Decision-Making. J Bus Ethics 172, 803–819 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04489-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04489-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation