Abstract
In times of digitalization and globalization, social expectations change at an increasing pace. In order to provide orientation in times of frequent change, this article argues to reinforce the meaning of moral principles, norms, or values as focal points, which build the basis of mutually aligned behavioral expectations. Accordingly, the paper explains the abstract meaning of focal points – having reciprocal expectations as foundation for social cooperation – as well as the particular relevance of the focal point ‘do no harm’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Actually, the more commonly used version is ‘history repeats itself’, a paraphrase of the saying from Ecclesiastes.
In a similar way as the meaning of a speech cannot be reduced to its words or syntactical properties although it is based on these (cf. Polanyi 2009: 41).
Although there are theoretically 168 h a week, it is not possible to use all of them for work, since time also needs to be invested for elementary physical, physiological, social and other needs, which has to be acknowledged by managers.
It is worthwhile to note that competition, which is a crucial element in markets as well as democracy, is actually a conflict (between the competitors).
An essential part of ethics is to clarify directly or indirectly the meaning of what is meant by ‘good’. Presumably, ‘good’ or ‘right’ are the most basic focal points of ethics.
This formula encompasses the time dimension (‘sustainable’), the social dimension (‘social cooperation’ and ‘mutual’) and the personal dimension (‘advantage’ in the sense of ‘good life’).
Kant’s categorical imperative can be interpreted as expression of this criterion with regard to individual maxims as the subjective principle of action; their universalizability is a necessary, albeit not sufficient, property to realize consistency of all actions of autonomous individuals.
See, for example, Brennan and Buchanan (2000).
Note, however, that the reasons for a focal point to serve as a focal point can be individually different. One may follow the law for a variety of reasons: out of routine, the wish to avoiding sanctions, (different) religious beliefs, (different) ethical reasons etc. This complicates the task of (business) ethics, insofar it is the provision of (ethical) focal points, but allows to reap the benefits from pluralism.
There is a fluent transition from focal points to social norms, principles, regulations, customs, etc. They all can and often do frame mutual expectations. Following the reasoning of Kreps (1990), we interpret focal points as the core elements of a set of shared beliefs regarding behavioral expectations; ethical focal points are then those elements (values, principles, norms) which are the basis regarding normative expectations: as one is expected (not) to behave. We believe that it will be a worthwhile task to reconstruct this concept within the various (neo-) institutional theories in order to enrich its meaning.
This corresponds to the aforementioned criterion of consistency.
It is an interesting question as to whether the shareholder value principle can be seen as such a focal point. This example demonstrates the challenge to specify focal points: their use is always embedded in contextualizing structures of mental models which are often not shared by others.
The addendum ‘sufficiently’ shall indicate that in a pluralistic society one cannot – and should not – expect one encompassing model of everything, as it were, which is shared by everyone; cf. Rawls’ remarks on the ‘fact of pluralism’ (2001: 33–34 and passim).
An example: One elementary form of showing respect is observance of human rights. The global expansion of markets and especially supply chains, combined with high pressure of competition, led to an increase of the number of people who could escape poverty, but was presumably also accompanied by an increase of violations of human rights; at least it increased the worldwide interdependency of actions. What, then, is a legitimate expectation toward a customer of a smartphone, a new shirt, or a piece of chocolate, since often they are indirectly involved in the violation of human rights?
‘VUCA’ stands for volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous; see Bennett and Lemoine 2014.
References
Aristotle. 2002. In Nicomachean Ethics, ed. Christopher J. Rowe and Sarah Broadie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, Nathan, and G. James Lemoine. 2014. What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business Horizons 57 (3): 311–317.
Bosch, Robert. 2018. Corporate Principles. History: Robert Bosch. https://www.bosch.com/explore-and-experience/robert-bosch-corporate-principles/. Accessed 28 May 2018.
Brennan, Geoffrey, and James M. Buchanan. 2000. The reason of rules – Constitutional political economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Buchanan, James.M. 1975. The limits of liberty: Between anarchy and leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Denzau, Arthur T., and Douglass C. North. 1994. Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos 47 (1): 3–31.
Ehrenberg, Alain. 2010. The Weariness of the Self: Diagnosing the History of Depression in the Contemporary Age. Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Gehlen, Arnold. 2004. Urmensch und Spätkultur. Philosophische Ergebnisse und Aussagen. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
Greenwood, Royston, Christine Oliver, Kerstin Sahlin, and Roy Suddaby, eds. 2008. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Hassan, Robert. 2016. Network time and the new knowledge epoch. Time & Society 12 (2): 225–241.
Hume, David. 2000. In A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. David Fate Norton and Mary J. Norton. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kreps, David M. 1990. Corporate culture and economic theory. In Firms, organizations and contracts, ed. Peter Buckley and Jonathan Michie, 221–275. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewe, Petra and Silko Pfeil. 2014. Das Arbeitgeberwahlverhalten der Generation Y. Eine werteorientierte Analyse unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Sinns der Arbeit. Enactus Studie.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1977. Differentiation of society. Canadian Journal of Sociology 2 (1): 29–53.
March, James G. 1994. Primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Marquard, Odo. 2015. Zukunft braucht Herkunft. Philosophische essays. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Mill, John S. 1859. On liberty. Kitchener: Batoche Books.
Misztal, Barbara A. 1996. Trust in modern societies. The search for the bases of social order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nassehi, Armin. 2008. Die Zeit der Gesellschaft. Auf dem Weg zu einer soziologischen Theorie der Zeit. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften / GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden.
Plato. 1991. The republic. New York: Basic Books.
Polanyi, Michael. 2009. The tacit dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John. 2005. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rosa, Hartmut. 2014. Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Schelling, Thomas C. 1980. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sugden, Robert, and Ignacio E. Zamarrón. 2006. Finding the key: The riddle of focal points. Journal of Economic Psychology 27 (5): 609–621.
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for insightful comments from anonymous reviewers and linguistic support from Daniel Ritchie.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Suchanek, A., Entschew, E.M. Ethical Focal Points as a Complement to Accelerated Social Change. Humanist Manag J 3, 221–232 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-018-0045-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-018-0045-y