Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:53:57.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managers and Consultants as Manipulators Reflections on the Suspension of Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Francis Sejersted
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A businessperson acts, qua businessperson, in two institutional contexts which in principle are completely distinct, and normally entail two different ways of relating to other people; on the one hand as an actor in the market, and on the other as the employees’ manager. We shall assume that different sets of norms govern how to relate to trading partners in the market and how to relate to subordinates in the company. The moral problems which arise in the two different institutions for conducting human relations consequently also differ. The main problem relating to market operations originates in the fact that one achieves the most desirable consequences when the objective as such is difficult to justify on moral grounds. Profit is the target, if necessary at the expense of the person one is dealing with. In this context—i.e. in the market—altruistic considerations, or acting out of consideration for the other party, can produce socially undesirable results. The problems confronting the businessperson as manager are of a different nature. We shall not be considering all aspects of management or consultancy ethics, only what we regard as in principle the fundamental problem, one which in fact applies to all management in modern society.

Type
Articles
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 67 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 For a more detailed analysis of this matter, see Sejersted, F., “Marked og moral. Om det gode samfunns avhengighet av moralsk tvilsomme handlinger” (Market and Morality: On the Good Society's Dependence on Morally Doubtful Acts),Google Scholar in his Demokratisk kapitalisme (Universitetsforlaget 1993).

2 Peters, Thomas J. and Robert, H. Waterman Jr., In Search of Excellence (New York 1982).Google Scholar For a brief analysis of the book, see Furusten, Staffan, “Knowledge or Ideological Tracts—a Case Study of Three Popular Management Books” in his Management Books—Guardians of the Myth of Leadership (Uppsala University Department of Business Studies 1992).Google Scholar See especially p. 41 on the need for both “shared values” and “strong leadership.”

3 MacIntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue (London 1981, 1985), pp. 23Google Scholar and 30 ff. “The manager represents in his character the obliteration of the distinction between manipulative and non-manipulative social relations; the therapist represents the same obliteration in the sphere of personal life. …Neither manager nor therapist, in their roles as manager and therapist, do or are able to engage in moral debate” (p. 30).

3 Ibid., p. 74. I shall be returning to the problem of legitimisation, which I consider of central importance in the present context.

5 Taylor, Charles, The Ethics of Authenticity (Harvard University Press, 1992), Ch. I, especially p. 5.Google Scholar

6 Ibid., p. 96.

7 Op.cit., p. 75.

8 This applies especially to Marxistically-inspired literature. Cf. for instance Braverman, Harry, Labor and Monopoly Capital. The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (Monthly Review Press, New York 1974;Google Scholar and Noble, David, Forces of Production. A Social History of Industrial Automation (Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1984).

9 Ibid., p. 106.

10 Baird, Lloyd S., Managing Human Resources (Homewood, IL: 1992), p. 15.Google Scholar

11 The “Fordist” system is characterised by all attempts at legitimising the system being moved out of the factory and into the consumption of the manufactured product. Cf., Sissel Myklebust: “Dagens teknokratidebatt sett i lys av teknokratiske retninger i perioden 1900-1945” (Ms. TMV 1993), p. 22.Google Scholar

12 MacIntyre, op. cit.

13 Martha, Nussbaum: “Virtue Revived” in the Times Literary Supplement, 3 July 1992.Google Scholar In this article Nussbaum makes a conditional criticism of Maclntyre.

14 Kai, Dramer: “Naeringslivsetikk” [Business Ethics] in Jon, Bing and Kai, Dramer. Etikk i nceringslivet (Ethics in the Business World) (Hjemmets Bokforlag 1990), p. 110.Google Scholar

15 This is emphasised, e.g. in Talcott Parsons in Talcott, Parsons & Edw., Shils (eds.): Towards a General Theory of Action (Cambridge, MA 1951).Google Scholar

16 Robert, N. Bellah et al.: The Good Society (New York 1992), p. 303.Google Scholar

17 Sissel Myklebust: “Teknologi og vitenskap i ‘ekspertsamfunnet’” [Technology and Science in ‘The Expert Society’] in TMV, series of working papers 1993. The basis of knowledge of the engineering profession is discussed here, and also the relationship to management theories. It should, perhaps, be emphasised in this connection, with a view to consultancy activities within the field, that practical experience can, naturally, be communicated, although not as pure theory, but in connection with action in specific situations.

18 Carlson, Sune, Executive Behaviour (Stockholm 1951), p. 52.Google Scholar

19 Strand,, Torodd, “Ledelse, noe som virker eller noe vi tror pá?” (Management: Something that Works or Something We Believe In?), in Strand, Torodd, ed., Ledelse kan Iceres (Management can be Learned), (Bedriftsekonomens forlag 1992), p. 30.Google Scholar

20 Furusten, Staffan, op. cit., p. 17.

21 Ibid., p. 2.

22 Waring, Stephen P., Taylorism Transformed. Scientific Management Theory since 1945 (Chapel Hill & London, 1991).Google Scholar

23 Ibid., p. 7. Waring places Herbert Simon in the Taylor tradition and Peter Drucker in the Mayo tradition, to take two of the most influential “mandarins.”

24 Ibid., p. 133.

25 This point of view is not uncommon. Cfr., Tian Serhaug: Leadership: The Sociology of the Personal, Organization, Power and Magic (The Work Research Institute, Oslo: 1992), p. 17:Google Scholar “A leadership can never count on being in ethical equilibrium.” and p. 33: “…we face a parallel situation to that of agent 007's famous ‘license to kill,’ namely to give leaders a right to act immorally.”

26 Ibid., pp. 202-3.

27 Strand, op. cit., p. 29.

28 Sørhaug, op. cit., p. 2: “this literature offers a promise to manage the leader's impossible task.” Cfr. ibid., p. 22.

29 The concept of “bounded rationality” is taken from Herbert, Simon: “Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations,” American Economic Review 1979, p. 501.Google Scholar

30 Sørhaug, op. cit., p. 12.

31 Cf. Sørhaug, op. cit., p. 21 and Werring, Henri, “Det etiske ansvar ved opplaering” (Ethical Responsibility in the Provision of Training), in Werring, Henri, ed., Etikk for ledere. Selvmot-sigelse eller utfordring? (Ethics for managers. Self-contradiction or challenge?) (Godbok 1987), p. 103Google Scholar (in translation): “In Norway, too, we find managers today frequently speaking of their employees as a ‘family’—implying that the closeness and permanence which link biological relatives also apply to the company's personnel, and that they have the same kind of concern for their employees as parents have for their children.” Werring rejects this as empty rhetoric.

32 Arendt, Hannah, “What is Authority?” in her Between Past and Future (Penguin 1978).Google Scholar Arendt emphasises among other things the distinction between totalitarian régimes based on power and authoritarian régimes based on authority. It can be argued that authority can also be founded in “charisma.” No doubt the charismatic leader as described by Max Weber is also to be found in modern society. But according to Weber charisma provides a very transient basis for the exercise of leadership.

33 Czarniawska-Joerges, Barbara, An handla med ord. Om organisatorisk prat, organisa-torisk styrning och fbretagsledningskonsultering (Carlssons, Stockholm: 1988), p. 121,Google Scholar where (in translation) “discreet control” is described as “more effective and more difficult to resist than traditional visible organizational control,” and p. 47 where, with a reference to Morgan, G., Images of Organization (Sage, London 1986),Google Scholar she notes how characteristic it is for “bosses and others in positions of power to tend not to pay attention to power as a phenomenon.” Sørhaug, op. cit., p. 28: “Contrary to organizational theory which ‘only’ looks aside, we can say that management literature had a sad tendency to lie about the most painful things concerning power and trust.”

34 Sørhaug, op. cit., p. 6.

35 Nielsen, Torben Hviid, “Moralske Verdier” (Moral values) in Marked og Moral (Market and Morality) (Naeringslivets Hovedorganisasjons serie Næringsliv og etikk no. 1, 1992) (series on business and ethics published by the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry).

36 Halvorsen, Kjersti, Noen linjer i bedriftsrådgivningens idehistorie (Some Trends in the History of Business Consultancy Ideas) (LOS-senter Notat 92/39). She quotes Waring, but in the present connection attaches at least as much importance to Andrew, Abbott, The System of Professions. An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor (The University of Chicago Press: 1988).Google Scholar He sees an imbalance among management consultants between practical labels and transcendent abstractions, which leaves them lacking in substance (Halvorsen, p. 25).

37 This has been pointed out in many connections, e.g. Czarniawska-Joerges, op. cit., p. 45.

38 Halvorsen, op. cit., pp. 13 ff. and 23.

39 The quotes (the first two translated) are from Strand, Torodd, op. cit. An important book representing this new trend is Eccles, Robert G. and Nitin, Nohria, Beyond the Hype. Rediscovering the Essence of Management (Harvard Business School Press: 1992).Google Scholar

40 March, James, “Organizational Consultants and Organizational Research,” in Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 19, Nos. 1 & 2, June 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. Halvorsen, Kjersti, op. cit, p. 26.

41 Czarniawska-Joerges, op. cit., p. 43.

42 Ibid., p. 44.

43 Ibid., pp. 119 and 123.

44 Taylor, Charles, op. cit., pp. 62-67.

45 Kierkegaard, Søren, Either/Or. A Fragment of Life (Penguin Books: 1992), p. 486.Google Scholar

46 After the American author George Kenning. Cf. Nils Schjander: Hvis jeg bare hadde en bedre sjef. George Kenning om ledelse. [If I Only Had a Better Boss. George Kenning about Management] (Hjemmets bokforlag 1991, first edition 1987). This book has been published in an edition of tens of thousands, and has been discussed with a number of central Norwegian leaders of industry.

47 Ragnvald Kalleberg: Kenning-tradisjon i norsk ledelse [The Kenning Tradition in Norwegian Management] Nytt Norsk Tidskrift 3/1991, pp. 218-44, p. 226.

48 Ibid., p. 237. Kalleberg refers here to Bjøm, Gustavsen: “Workplace Reform and Democratic Dialogue,” Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 6, 1985.Google Scholar

49 Henri Werring: op. cit., pp. 106 and 108.

50 The Kenning tradition is an example of exactly this. Cf. also Furusten, op. cit., chap. 2: “Swedish Managerial Thinking: A Shadow of America” for a comparable observation under Swedish conditions.

51 Czarniawska-Joerges, op. cit., p. 93. Cf. also Judith, A. Merkle: Management and Ideology (1980)Google Scholar and Myklebust, op. cit., p. 64 f. for discussion of Merkle. Management theories of the Taylorist variant are analysed as techniques for oppression of class conflicts. The struggle between work and capital must be transcended by management control of both workers and owners.

52 Odd, Viggo Nilsen: Miljø og Organisasjon. Å rdal Verk 1985-1992 [Environment and Organisation. Ardal Verk 1985-1992] (TMV working party report no. 67, 1993), p. 38.Google Scholar

53 That power deceives has, interestingly enough, been discussed by Torodd Strand in a management context, op. cit. He has not, however, discussed the moral problem that results from the corruption.

54 Some would say that it is not ignored, on the contrary, it is a trend which represents a sort of anti-organisational ideal—chaos bringing out innovation. Cf., MichaelPiore, J. & Charles, F. Sabel: The Second Industrial Divide (Basic Books, New York: 1984), p. 247 f.Google Scholar Such analysts as Waring (op. cit.) would reply that this is a fiction, it is at best a controlled chaos, in other words that it does not go outside the trap of instrumental reason—chaos is used instrumentally.

55 Francis, Sejersted: Demokratisk kapitalisme [Democratic Capitalism], op. cit., p. 199.Google Scholar The same chapter puts forward the argument that the technocracy movements have had difficulty in breaking through in Norway, even if the tendency has also been clear there.