The purpose of this paper is to analyze the role of values in strategic management. We discuss recent criticisms of the concept of strategy and argue that the concept of value helps reconcile these criticisms with traditional models of strategy. We show that Andrews' model of corporate strategy rightly takes morally significant values to be essential to effective management. We show how the notion of value can be clarified and used in research into various conceptions of corporate morality.

Corporate Strategy has emerged as a central metaphor for private-sector enterprise. Given inherent imperfections in markets, one important question to consider is how well the practice of Corporate Strategy contributes to social welfare. An account of the implicit morality of free markets is developed as a standard against which two particular, second best solutions to market imperfections — namely, American federal antitrust policy and Corporate Strategy — are compared. Corporate Strategy is subsequently evaluated in terms of the fundamental principles of (...) Rawls' theory of justice. In both analyses, Corporate Strategy is found to depart significantly and systematically from the standards of social justice. An alternative principle, grounded in the concept of duty, is introduced as a means for reconceptualizing Corporate Strategy. (shrink)

In the contemporary flurry of hostile corporate takeover activity, the ethics of the practice of greenmail have been called into question. The authors provide an account of greenmail in parallel with Daniel Ellsberg's conception of blackmail, as consisting of two conditions: a threat condition and a compliance condition.The analysis then proceeds to consider two questions: Is all greenmail morally wrong? Are all hostile takeovers morally wrong? The authors conclude that there is no basis for answering either question in the affirmative. (...) While there is no cause for moral concern per se, the practices of both greenmail and hostile takeovers yield deeper and more interesting questions for the theory of corporate governance. (shrink)

The papers by Mele, Randels, and Schrag call attention to the proper work that the concept of loyalty can perform. All threeauthors argue that loyalty is not taken seriously enough in modern corporations. As Mele, Randels, and Schrag independently ascribespecial status to the concept of loyalty, their analyses converge along numerous conceptual margins. Along these margins, a singularconception of loyalty comes into focus. Along these margins, we can see Simultaneously why each author assigns extraordinary status to loyalty and why, ironically, (...) each turns the special concept of loyalty over to the service of conventional management thinking. Mele,Randels, and Schrag leave it for us to ponder whether this ironic twist is unique to the concept of loyalty. (shrink)

Entrepreneurship and management are commonly treated as members of the same family of concepts. In the wake of a recent reinterpretation of entrepreneurship as an existential phenomenon, there is no longer reason to take for granted the kinship between entrepreneurship and management. Indeed, it is possible to interpret entrepreneurship and management as antitheses on one compelling ethical criterion: voluntary exercise of the word “no” about one’s own projects. The implications of this ethical split between entrepreneurship and management reach from management (...) education to entrepreneurship research to the distinctiveness of the field of business ethics. (shrink)

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a popular device used by researchers to analyze such institutions as business and the modem corporation. This popularity is not deserved under a certain condition that is widespread in college education. If we, as management educators, take seriouslyour parts in preparing our students to participate in the institutions of a democratic society, then the Prisoner’s Dilemma-as clever a rhetoricaldevice as it is-is an unacceptable means to that end. By posing certain questions about the prisoners in the (...) Prisoner’s Dilemma, I show that management educators have created a Prisoners Dilemma, whereby they intellectually imprison themselves and their students by continuingto appeal to the Prisoner’s Dilemma. These questions are not encouraged by the advocates of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. (shrink)

The use of literature, and other sources from the humanities, in management education has become more prominent in recent years. But, there is reason to question the ethical justifications by which the marriage of Management and the Humanities is customarily defended. This paper is a critique of Management and the Humanities as it is practiced through the use of literature. By means of a liberal pragmatist kind of criticism, and a case analysis about a hypothetical Grand Theory of Management called (...) Theory R, I draw a sharp distinction between a Management and the Humanities approach that merely confirms conventional truths and a new approach to Management and the Humanities that enables students to grow as what Henry Giroux calls "critical rather than 'good' citizens." I show how this new approach can enable management educators to retrieve the potential of Management and the Humanities to contribute to liberal education. (shrink)

The use of literature, and other sources from the humanities, in management education has become more prominent in recent years. But, there is reason to question the ethical justifications by which the marriage of Management and the Humanities is customarily defended. This paper is a critique of Management and the Humanities as it is practiced through the use of literature. By means of a liberal pragmatist kind of criticism, and a case analysis about a hypothetical Grand Theory of Management called (...) Theory R, I draw a sharp distinction between a Management and the Humanities approach that merely confirms conventional truths and a new approach to Management and the Humanities that enables students to grow as what Henry Giroux calls "critical rather than 'good' citizens." I show how this new approach can enable management educators to retrieve the potential of Management and the Humanities to contribute to liberal education. (shrink)

The folklore of Groundhog Day is an invitation to reflect on continuity, choice, and reinvention in our daily lives. Groundhog Day is an annual opportunity to imagine how the future could unfold as a straightforward extension of what we are doing today in one another’s company, or as a departure from the typical course of our joined endeavors. The joined endeavor at issue in this paper is the act of justifying inclusion of the study of managerial practice, commonly calledManagement, in (...) the undergraduate college curriculum in the United States. Management is routinely shielded from a process of intellectual justification. There is a fruitful alternative to this de facto exemption. I argue that there is a place in the undergraduate curriculum for systematic attention to managerial practice, but that place need not be filled with a Management major per se. This new curricular place is anchored in the experience of living our everyday lives in a world managed by others. The inspiration for imagining this different place came one Groundhog Day, as I was sorting mail delivered to me by the US Postal Service. (shrink)

Competition, an experience that human beings construct, is also a challenging concept to teach in a liberal education curriculum. Liberal education is, among other things, a celebration of what imaginative human beings can accomplish together with their differences and their common ground in sight. It is not self-evident, however, that such an ethic of connection, tolerance, and civility canencompass competition. Competition often unfolds as a divisive human experience. Divisiveness among certain human interests is a bedrock premise in the disciplines of (...) economics and strategic management. Frequently, one or both of these disciplines can be found in an undergraduate curriculum alongside liberal education initiatives. The ethical aspirations that we hold for liberal education could be undermined by two disciplines in our very midst.This paper contains a defense of a curricular remedy for this threat to liberal education. With a focus on places, or sites, I create a framework with which we liberal educators can reinterpret competition as the routine practice of an ethic of connection, tolerance, and civility. This focus on sites is augmented when we set our sights photographically on places where competitors necessarily get along with one another. By re-conceiving competition in terms of the places and the sites of human togetherness, I render avoidable the intellectual disconnection between an ethics of liberal education and the divisive concept of competition. We liberal educators can claim competition-intensity, wins and losses, and all-for our educational enterprise. (shrink)