No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Employee Vice: Some Competing Models A Response to Moberg
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2015
Abstract:
Much of the current discussion of evil within business and professions locates evil within the individual employee. Dennis Moberg (1997) has argued for conceiving of employee viciousness as a lack of self-control. This paper argues, that while some evil behaviors may be well-modelled as instances of low self-control, this model does not fit much of what might qualify as evil (e.g., child-caregivers falsely accusing their fellow employees of ritual child abuse). The paper examines three alternative models of evil, two drawn from literature, one from theology, and shows why these alternative models are just as relevant for thinking about the nature and cause of evil as the low self-control model drawn from the criminology literature.
How intoxicating to feel like God the Father and to hand out definitive testimonials of bad character and habits—Albert Camus
- Type
- Response Article(s)
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1998
References
Arendt, Hannah. “Personal Responsibility under Dictatorship,” The Listener, August 6, 1964.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah.The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1979.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . Translated by Rackham, H.Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Barber, B.The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Foot, Phillipa.Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, M. R. and Hirschi, T.A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Herbig, K. L. “A History of Recent American Espionage.” In Sarbin, T. R., Carney, R. M. and Eoyang, C., Citizen Espionage: Studies in Trust and Betrayal. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994.Google Scholar
Hosmer, L. T. “Trust: The Connecting Link Between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics.” Academy of Management Review, vol. 20: 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Henry.The Aspern Papers and The Turn of the Screw. New York: Penguin Books, 1986.Google Scholar
Koehn, Daryl. “Should We Trust in Trust?”, American Business Law Journal, vol. 34, no. 2 (Winter 1996).Google Scholar
Koehn, Daryl. “Whistleblowing and Trust: Some Lessons of the ADM Scandal,” ETHICS Website Commentary, September, 1995 at http://www.depaul.edu/ethics/.Google Scholar
Lifton, Robert Jay.Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair.After Virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. R. and Scott, W. G. “America’s Problems and Needed Reforms: Confronting the Ethic of Personal Advantage.” Academy of Management Executive, vol. 4: 23–35.Google Scholar
Plato. Translated by North Fowler, Harold.Apology, Crito, Euthyphro, Phaedo, Phaedrus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Sarbin, T. R. “A Criminological Approach to Security Violations.” In Sarbin, T. R., Carney, R. M. and Eoyang, C., Citizen Espionage: Studies in Trust and Betrayal. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994.Google Scholar
Semler, Ricardo. “Managing without Managers.” Harvard Business Review, Sept-October 89, no. 5: 76–84.Google Scholar
Staw, B. M and Szwajkowski, E. “The Scarcity-Munificence Component of Organizational Environments and the Commission of Illegal Acts.” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 20: 345–354.Google Scholar
Young-Bruehl, Elisabeth.The Anatomy of Prejudices. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.Google Scholar