♦♦♦

JOURNAL 10.1177/1056492604268203 MANAGEMENT / Jacobs AND BUSINESS September INTEGRITY / PRAGMATISM ETHICS OF 2004 INQUIRY IN

ESSAYS

A Pragmatist Approach to Integrity in Business Ethics DAVID C. JACOBS Hood College

Integrity is a critical concept in business ethics. Scholars and practitioners affirm its relevance to the ethical fulfillment of a variety of goals in business. Integrity has been defined in a variety of ways, sometimes emphasizing moral consistency, personal wholeness, or honesty. Several scholars in business ethics have argued for the application of philosophical pragmatism in the construction of an ethical framework. A pragmatist interpretation of integrity would require that individuals consider the objective social consequences (contemporaneous and unfolding) of their actions. It would stress personal growth and learning from experience. It would not prescribe action based on a rigid and formal code of ethics. Nor would it sanction an ethics of expediency, driven by a narrow self-interest. Pragmatism affirms the interdependence of means and ends and would require an iterative, case-by-case inquiry as to one’s moral choices and their consequences. Keywords:

I

pragmatism; business ethics; sweatshops; integrity

ntegrity is a critical concept in business ethics. Scholars and practitioners affirm its relevance to the ethical fulfillment of a variety of goals in business. As Becker (1998) noted, integrity has been explored in empirical research as a predictor of job performance, as a central trait of effective leaders, and as a determinant of trust in organizations. Many corporate codes of ethics list (but do not define) managerial and employee integrity as a principal element. Sometimes embattled leaders in business and government are said to have “the utmost integrity.” (After Enron executive Clifford Baxter committed suicide, whistle-blower Sherron Watkins praised him for his “utmost integrity” [Freedom of Information Center,

2002].) Integrity is apparently a virtue tested by fire. Although critics are divided as to the proper sort of management engagement with stakeholders, most would agree that integrity should characterize stakeholder relations. I intend to present the case for a pragmatist approach to integrity, focusing on the work of philosopher John Dewey. Pragmatism is an American movement in philosophy associated with C. S. Peirce, William James, John Dewey, and most recently, Richard Rorty. It is characterized by the perspective that truth is provisional and is tested in experience. A pragmatist ethics would require that individuals consider the objective social consequences (contemporaneous

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY, Vol. 13 No. 3, September 2004 215-223 DOI: 10.1177/1056492604268203 © 2004 Sage Publications

215

216

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004

and emergent) of their actions, exercise moral choice on this basis, and continue to learn from experience. INTEGRITY AS WHOLENESS The Oxford English Dictionary presents two categories of definitions for integrity: the physical and the moral. Integrity applies to the physical state of undivided wholeness, whether of a united land or unbroken body. Alternatively, integrity connotes an unimpaired moral state, characterized by innocence, sinlessness, uprightness, honesty, sincerity (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989) The latter meaning appears to be the relevant one in the context of business ethics. Many writers, however, apply the spirit of the physical meaning of integrity to the ethical context. They suggest that an individual with integrity respects no partitions in his or her life. They submit that integrity requires that the individual respond to a problem without compartmentalization, and an integrated personality is likely to blend reason and emotion, self-interest and social consciousness, in his or her work. Peck (1987) wrote: We psychologists use a verb that is the opposite of the verb “to integrate”: “to compartmentalize.” By it we refer to the remarkable capacity we human beings have to take matters that are properly related to each other and put them in separate, airtight mental compartments where they don’t rub up against each other and cause us any pain. (pp. 234-235)

From this perspective, integrity requires a conscious reconciliation of variables, in Peck’s (1987) words, “that we fully experience the tension of conflicting needs, demands, and interests, that we even be emotionally torn apart by them” (p. 235). Peck is not a business ethicist; however, his emphasis on the tension of conflicting demands seems very applicable to the business ethics context. INTEGRITY AS A COMPLEX OF VIRTUES Contemporary business ethicists have applied virtue ethics, social contract theory, and objectivism, among other approaches, in the consideration of integrity. Solomon (1992) proposed a business ethics founded on social virtues, in which business activity is embedded in larger social concerns, leading to the

manager’s self-respect and recognition of social interdependence. In S ol omon’s vi ew, i ntegri ty incorporates a balance between institutional loyalty and moral autonomy and is associated with moral humility. Although principles and policies are important, integrity “also involves a pervasive sense of social context and a sense of moral courage that means standing up for others as well as oneself” (Solomon, 1992, p. 174). Solomon did not reduce integrity to a single dimension whether it is rational self-interest or self-sacrifice. He classified integrity as a supervirtue or complex of virtues, demonstrated in thought and deed. By virtue, Solomon meant a revealed disposition to act in certain morally appropriate ways. He found integrity to be inextricably social and even to contain a measure of altruism (doing for others at some personal cost) (Solomon, 1992, p. 168, 174). Carson (1995) noted that honesty and integrity are linked in traditional definitions of the latter but submits that they are by no means synonymous. He argued that “an unwavering commitment to acting for the benefit of others, standing up for those who are under attack, loyalty to people to whom we have committed ourselves, acting honorably, and so on” (p. 6) would earn the designation of integrity. Yet none of these is necessarily a function of honesty or truth. As with Solomon, a measure of altruism is implied here (Carson, 1995, p. 16). DeGeorge (1993) agreed that integrity requires something beyond a self-interested consistency. He explained, “Although integrity requires norms to be self-imposed and self-accepted, they cannot be entirely arbitrary and self-serving” (DeGeorge, 1993, p. 6). Thus, integrity implies a realm of autonomous action guided by a moral minimum of responsibility to others. DeGeorge sketched a model of integrity that would suggest that managers demonstrate responsibility to their employees through continuous employment and profit sharing. He submitted that multinational corporations can compete with integrity by exceeding their legal obligations, respecting human rights, fostering human development, and transcending the moral minimum (DeGeorge, 1993, p. 189). In their integrative social contracts theory, Donaldson and Dunfee (1999) explained that globally apparent hypernorms should guide the negotiation of microsocial contracts within which business enterprise is formed. In Ties That Bind (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1999), they listed integrity along with fairness

Jacobs / PRAGMATISM AND INTEGRITY IN BUSINESS ETHICS

and respect for others as timeless principles that should shape and limit social contracting: There exist principles so fundamental that they command our allegiance. These include the principles of fairness, of respect for other people, and of the value of integrity. The challenge for businesses is to be not only faithful to timeless principles but also reflective of their members’ cultural and religious values. (Donaldson & Dunfee, 1999, p. viii)

Objectivism and Integrity Becker (1998) and Locke and Becker (1998) sought to formulate an objectivist definition of integrity in a pair of Academy of Management Review essays that have stimulated considerable debate (see Barry & Stephens, 1998; Orlitzky & Jacobs, 1998). Locke and Becker (1998) argued that objectivism has the virtue of being grounded in objective reality. Leading objectivists like Ayn Rand (1964) and Leonard Peikoff (1991) have defined integrity as loyalty, in action, to a morally justifiable code of principles and values that promotes the long-term survival and well-being of individuals as rational beings. Objectivism embraces capitalism as an expression of self-interest, individual rights, and individual reason. The Locke and Becker essays provide an articulated argument linking objectivist metaphysics (including the axiom that there is an external reality), epistemology (individual reason is the only valid source of knowledge), and ethics (founded on rational self-interest). Objectivist integrity is an interesting contrast to the other interpretations advanced above because it rejects the social, possibly altruistic, dimension of integrity. In most of the other views, integrity is fundamentally social in that it demands certain qualities of social relations. DeGeorge (1993), Solomon (1992), Carson (1995), and Donaldson and Dunfee (1999) linked integrity with an altruism that exceeds a calculated and strategic benevolence. Objectivists tend to dismiss altruism as a form of capitulation to others and find human relations better understood as contracts among individuals. Within the objectivist framework, individuals may choose to practice a limited benevolence toward others in accord with rational self-interest. Objectivism ultimately fails as a philosophical basis for integrity because of its fundamentally flawed conception of human nature. Objectivists err in their unfounded concept of the individual as prior to and

217

fully distinguishable from the social and in their understanding of reason as an enterprise wholly of the self. CORPORATE INTEGRITY Many corporations have established ethical compliance systems that cite integrity as a fundamental principle. Consulting firm KPMG Peat Marwick has a division focusing on integrity management, one of whose stated purposes is to ensure “that systems to deliver compliance with laws, regulations, policies and codes of conduct are comprehensive” (KPMG, 2003, n.p.). In their book, Integrity Management: A Guide to Managing Legal and Ethical Issues in the Workplace, LeClair, Ferrell, and Fraedrich (1998) defined integrity management as “uncompromising implementation of legal and ethical principles” that are themselves embodied in the strategic planning process of the firm. Paine (1994) similarly wrote of organizational integrity, which consists of a governance system for the corporation that supports ethical standards exceeding legal requirements (p. 111). There are perils in the managerial frame of reference that underlie many of these views of integrity, particularly the corporate form last mentioned. Some larger questions are easily obscured. Solomon (1992), DeGeorge (1993), and Donaldson and Dunfee (1999) stressed autonomous choice by managers. The autonomous choices of managers, however modulated, ordinarily presuppose that the enterprise is a higher end to which managerial choices are means. Although corporate or organizational integrity may impose significant moral constraints on the behavior of corporate officers and employees, it still takes the enterprise as a given. It potentially compartmentalizes a corporate self limited in moral reach. There are likely to be corporate practices that escape sufficient scrutiny from within such a system. Note the parallel with ombuds procedures that simulate but do not guarantee independence from the official hierarchy. There also is confusion in the assumption that the corporation is an entity that can embrace integrity. Despite the bizarre legal conception of the corporation as a legal person with unlimited life, it is not a human actor. When managers formulate an integrity program and instruct subordinates to comply, they may preempt the deliberations among employees that

218

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004

advance integrity. Integrity applies best to individuals and groups rather than organizations. Ethics codes do not themselves constitute or implement integrity. They are products of prior decisions that may have embodied integrity; however, they are mere mechanisms without continued socially conscious judgment by living people. Donaldson and Dunfee’s (1999) integrative social contracts theory leaves hypernorms and concepts such as integrity largely undefined. Their fictional contracting process trivializes the role of consent in justifying existing business systems, even if it belongs to a noble philosophical tradition. The individual’s right of exit and dissent is close to a hollow one when it comes to inertial business practice as captured in microsocial norms. The opportunity to change jobs or leave the country does not ensure that existing practices have the consent of subordinates. Moral free space, defined as a realm of discretion in which individuals and groups negotiate the context and outlines of business enterprise, is more fiction than reality for employees. A defensible approach to integrity in business ethics should simultaneously provide practical guidance to managers as well as reach unethical practices embedded in the corporation and management hierarchy. The corporate structure should not be accepted as given if it generates an unethical result as the manager conducts business as usual. The pragmatism of John Dewey may provide a fruitful approach. PRAGMATISM AND BUSINESS ETHICS Several scholars have suggested that philosophical pragmatism would be an appropriate framework for business ethics. For example, Margolis (1998) (seconded by Frederick, 2000) wrote: “To foster ethical conduct that is possible, in real business organizations, our task is to help people in those organizations figure out how to do better. It is a call for Deweyan ‘meliorism’” (p. 414). Buchholz and Rosenthal (1997) argued that pragmatism offers a fruitful way to view the corporation and its relationship to society. They dispute the relevance of traditional economic models based on atomistic individualism. They wrote: Pragmatic philosophy based on different assumptions opens up the possibility of developing an alter-

native theory of the firm in society that fuses the market and public policy, that overcomes the traditional dichotomies between business and government, economic and social, public and private. (Buchholz & Rosenthal, 1997, p. 199)

Pragmatist Metaphysics Pragmatism rests on the assumption that there is a larger world outside the self. Each individual strives to understand the surrounding world. Dewey rejected any notion of a transcendent reality removed from experience or visible only to pure reason. He denied any mind/body dichotomy and argued instead that mind and body are equally manifestations of nature. The existence of a shared reality places individual actors on a common plane in which communication and cooperation (and ultimately business practice) are possible (Dewey, 1958, p. 74). Pragmatist Epistemology According to Dewey and fellow pragmatists Peirce and James, truth cannot be absolute; it is always provisional and instrumental. It is a useful view of the world. A truth may be superseded when a new truth is better validated by experience. Science represents an experimental method from which to infer causal relationships among external events and to develop an understanding of the environment. Humans formulate interpretations of these causal relationships (Wicks & Freeman, 1998, p. 126). Deweyan pragmatism finds science to be within the capacity of every individual. Although professional scientists practice experimentation with rigor, ordinary individuals learn from experiments as well. Children cannot learn to speak or walk without trying sounds and exploring movement. Pragmatism overcomes the traditional dichotomy between the individual and society, stressing the individual’s development within rather than independence from society. No one can express himself or herself and communicate ideas to others without reference to the groups in which his or her identity has evolved, arising from some mixture of social experiences. One’s very name is a blend of familial, cultural, and religious elements that define the individual in social terms. One’s ideas result from interaction with social stimuli and depend on language learned from the community.

Jacobs / PRAGMATISM AND INTEGRITY IN BUSINESS ETHICS

Pragmatism rejects the positivist dichotomy between describing and prescribing and therefore fails to quarantine and marginalize ethics as is the case with positivistic philosophies. Dewey (1920) wrote: “When all is said and done in criticism of present social deficiencies, one may well wonder whether the root difficulty does not lie in the separation of natural and moral science” (p. 173). Pragmatist Ethics Dewey argued that experience is at the root of ethics. He proposed a pragmatic ethical science based on the testing of hypotheses. Individuals construct hypothetical judgments about their prospective behaviors. They anticipate how the proposed behaviors may interact with the social and physical environment and determine their own character. Experience provides a sequence of tests. Individuals practice moral agency, choosing between inconsistent paths and deliberating in anticipation of consequences. Dewey rejected any conception of so-called duty as inhering in the individual; duty is to be experientially and socially determined. He disputed the underlying logic of Kant’s categorical imperative: that new moral situations can be judged according to a preformed set of rules. Dewey found merit in the utilitarians’ focus on consequences but challenged the mechanical and quantitative manner in which Bentham assessed consequences (through counting units of happiness). He conceded that pleasure often accompanies certain social outcomes but argued that this reflects an underlying valuation of these outcomes and does not validate Bentham’s choice of pleasure as the measure of action. Dewey’s approach to ethics calls for careful and deliberate case-by-case analysis. One does, however, learn from this exercise, and there are economies of effort; that is, the individual can consider a situation and place it in an instructive context that suggests a possible response. Sometimes one chooses an inappropriate analogy and learns from the consequences. In the years since the war in Vietnam, foreign policy debate in the United States has revolved around the question of whether a given crisis more resembled World War II or Vietnam because the proper analogy would suggest the military or diplomatic character of the U.S. response. Pragmatism does not require the use of a specific algorithm for the assessment of experience and conse-

219

quences. Rather, it calls for judgment. Moreover, social consequences extend to social and institutional details of differentiated impacts. Dewey inquired as to the specific circumstances of people’s lives, hesitating to generalize about a generic public. Dewey (1920) particularly deplored “ends justify the means” arguments. He dismissed the notion that any end could be so elevated that destructive means would be tolerated: “But now the doctrine of ‘higher ends’ gives aid, comfort and support to every socially isolated and socially irresponsible scholar, specialist, esthete and religionist” (Dewey, 1920, p. 172). In his description of a moral situation, Dewey (1920) provided a sketch of decision making according to a pragmatist ethic: A moral situation is one in which judgment and choice are required antecedently to overt action. The practical meaning of the situation—that is to say the action needed to satisfy it—is not self-evident. It has to be searched for. There are conflicting desires and alternate apparent goods. What is needed is to find the right course of action, the right good. Hence, inquiry is exacted: observation of the detailed makeup of the situation; analysis into its diverse factors; clarification of what is obscure; discounting of the more insistent and vivid traits; tracing the consequences of the various modes of action that suggest themselves; regarding the decision reached as hypothetical and tentative until the anticipated or supposed consequences that led to its adoption have been squared with actual consequences. This inquiry is intelligence. (Dewey, 1920, pp. 163-164)

Superficially, this sketch of moral choice may resemble rational decision making as codified by Simon (1979). In reality, Dewey’s approach is different because it addresses a moral situation, not a technical problem, because it legitimates emotions, and because it is iterative. A contemporary problem, the continuing crisis with Iraq, may better illustrate pragmatist ethics. The Bush administration’s deliberations about Iraq have seemed devoid of pragmatist insights. Pragmatism would direct that the judgment to go to war and other policy decisions be based on an assessment of likely consequences. (A pragmatist analysis of the Iraqi situation would consist of a set of carefully constructed hypothetical judgments involving alternative courses of action, reflecting new developments in each iteration.) It now appears that the Bush administration operated on the basis of a priori judgments as to the virtue of U.S. military intervention and the preroga-

220

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004

tives of U.S. power and that there was little evaluation of alternative scenarios. Although the consequences of any military intervention or other initiative cannot be fully predicted, they must be considered without rigid preconceptions, whether pacifist or militarist. Pragmatism may remind one of contingency theory in management scholarship (particularly Follett’s variety, see Wren & Greenwood, 1998, pp. 194-198); however, the latter departs in essential ways from Deweyan pragmatism. Contingency theories recommend specific management approaches that are in accord with the details of a given organizational reality (what Follett called the “law of the situation”); however, the framework is narrowly managerial. Contingency theory may justify democratic or dictatorial styles of management. Vecchio (1988) argued, “If you are in charge of a band of fascists, your subordinates may well expect and desire that you rule with an iron fist” (p. 19). On the other hand, pragmatism requires a broader consciousness of social consequences and thus would not provide provisional approval for dictatorial behavior. Through a pragmatist lens, integrity extends the sweep of problem solving, so that one seeks the solution to larger problems that afflict society, not merely solutions for one’s immediate problems or those of the organization. Dewey’s focus on emergent experience (and social consequences) requires attention to the conditions of others and invites their perspectives even if they are low in station. Dewey (1939) wrote: “The individuals of the submerged mass may not be very wise. But there is one thing they are wiser about than anybody else can be, and that is where the shoe pinches, the troubles they suffer from” (p. 401). Thus, Dewey’s pragmatism requires a larger view of the social reality including the condition of the least well off and attention to their voices. This has much in common with various formulations of stakeholder theory. What distinguishes the pragmatist approach is the critical approach to office and organization as means not ends in themselves. The pragmatist avoids ethical compartmentalization as he or she works within the organization, seeking to improve the social reality (from which complete separation is never possible for the individual). The individual and the collective are often conflated in the consideration of business. The corporation is a collective instrument and yet is treated in the law as a person and is sometimes accorded the personality of an individual. Pragmatism is particularly

helpful in its illumination of the false view of business as an extension of the individual. It should be noted that pragmatism is equally hostile to an individualism that denies social context and a socialist or statist philosophy that denies all claims of the individual. Growth Dewey emphasized personal change and development in his pragmatist philosophy. He believed that engagement with the world of experience and moral decision necessarily alters the individual. The choice at stake in a moral deliberation or valuation is worth of this and that kind of character and disposition. . . . In committing oneself to a particular course, a person gives a lasting set to his own being. Consequently, it is proper to say that in picking this object rather than that, one is in reality choosing what kind of person or self one is going to be. (Dewey, 1985, p. 274, 287) In short, the thing actually at stake in any serious deliberation is not difference of quantity, but what kind of person one is to become, what sort of self is in the making, what kind of a world is making. (Dewey, 1983, p. 150)

Thus, we can construct a pragmatist approach to integrity. Pragmatist ethics require that individuals consider the objective social consequences (immediate and emergent) of their actions. It would stress personal growth, learning from experience, and an integrated personality. Pragmatist integrity is the subset of pragmatist ethics that applies to the manager or leader who seeks to behave ethically but faces the challenges of office. This is an arbitrary classification. Dewey would deny that ethics applies in different ways to managers and workers. However, within the universe of ethics, a subset concerns managerial decisions; for the sake of this inquiry, integrity is focused on this specialized subset. Pragmatist integrity allows a manager to be in the business world but not of it, as he or she explores the world of social consequences conscious of but unblinded by his or her position. PRAGMATIST INTEGRITY AND BUSINESS PRACTICE What would Deweyan integrity mean for business practice? Managers would seek to be less myopic about the consequences of their decisions. For example, they would not merely assert that downsizing sat-

Jacobs / PRAGMATISM AND INTEGRITY IN BUSINESS ETHICS

isfies the rigors of the marketplace. They would exercise restraint, consult with employees, and consider alternatives. They would examine the evidence as to the experience and consequences of downsizing as an enterprise strategy. Pragmatist integrity departs from so-called enlightened self-interest; the former directs the manager to consider the underlying problems of the enterprise and economy. A pragmatist regards an organization as a means to human ends, not as a possession to be defended. He would consider coordinated strategies with government and nonprofit groups to lessen the pain of reorganizing. Managers would be more aware of the interdependence of means and ends. They would not justify low wages and poor working conditions by their firms’ need to be competitive and profitable. The so-called sweatshop (with wages low relative to basic needs and hours of work an obstacle to family obligations) would not be tolerated as a legitimate means to the end of organizational competitiveness. Firm competitiveness would be an intermediate end, and approaches to it would be compared with regard to social consequences. Objectivists and utilitarians whose conception of integrity is individualistic in character would not be inclined to perceive the problem of worker exploitation in sweatshops. The fact of individual employment in a workshop under assumed conditions of free choice would ensure them that the employment relationship satisfies the rational self-interests of the parties. However, the physical and sexual abuse of employees and the military-style security alleged to characterize sweatshops challenge the assumption of a workplace free from coercion. Pragmatism would require that employment bargains be examined with respect to the objective conditions of the workers. An employer who contracts with suppliers who deny their employees reasonable expectations of wages exceeding subsistence levels and a healthy and safe working environment fails to demonstrate integrity. Wages and the cost of living in a community can be compared to establish whether wages are adequate. Although this is not an entirely mechanical exercise, and it requires judgments, it is far cry from considering integrity as a matter of process in contracting. The pragmatist manager would consider the social consequences of multinational siting of suppliers. U.S. disinvestment from domestic manufacturing has reduced the employment base of many American cities and regions. U.S. investment in production facilities abroad enhances economic opportunities for

221

those thereby employed; however, there are more humane alternatives to sweatshops. A reasonable prerequisite for U.S. firms’ contracts with suppliers in developing nations would be that the consequences and opportunity costs for workers in both nations be jointly considered. There would be no assumption that market transactions necessarily leave everyone better off. Pragmatist ethics do not dictate the imposition of any one nation’s institutions or practices on another. Rather, they demand inquiry as to the local and global effects of human decisions. No one, regardless of his or her position or national identity, is exempt from this responsibility. In the many instances of injustice in the world of multinational business, probably local and foreign managers are implicated. (For example, the 1985 Bhopal chemical disaster could not have happened without lax safety standards at the local and corporate levels.) Obversely, the correction of injustice will require the collaboration of managers (among others) across national borders. Pragmatist integrity would alter management responses to union organizing. There is considerable evidence of employee interest in union representation. Freeman and Rogers (1999) found that most unorganized workers would like some form of representation with independence from management. Freeman and Medoff (1984) observed a productivity advantage in unionized enterprises. Other economists have noted that unions win wage-and-benefit increases desired by employees. These factors should militate against a reflexive antiunion stance among managers. Managers practicing pragmatist integrity would not seek to suppress unionism. If employees were to provide authoritative evidence of their support for unionization (so-called card-check), their managers would be willing to recognize the relevant unions. Of course, managers must maintain the profitability of their firms. This cannot, however, be a higher end that justifies poor treatment of employees. Managers ideally should seek the input of their employees in the selection of strategies that maintain profitability and adequate labor standards. Pragmatist Exemplars Filene (1924), the founder of Filene’s Department Store and the Twentieth Century Fund, described his notion of proper business leadership in this way:

222

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT INQUIRY / September 2004

The sort of business man who broadly speaking, is the opposite of the reactionary, the sort of business man who faces fresh problems with a fresh mind, who is more interested in creating a better order of things than in defending the existing order of things, who realizes that a private business is a public trust, and who has a greater reverence for scientific method than for the traditions and majority opinion of his class. (pp. 284-285)

Filene endured much criticism from fellow business executives for his sharing of power within his store with his workers and his increasing sympathy for the labor movement. He was ultimately removed from his position at Filene’s as a result of his democratic experimentation. In his willingness to experiment in the leadership of his business while considering the consequences for workers and the community, in his perseverance in spite of ridicule from mainstream business leaders, Filene demonstrated integrity according to a pragmatist definition. Hawken, a founder of outdoor furniture retailer Smith and Hawken, has demonstrated a similar approach to business leadership in his inquiry as to the environmental consequences of business decisions. His goal has been to devise means for enterprises to incorporate considerations of environmental impact, and his view extends from the minutia of business practice to global developments in the environment. Hawken’s “natural capitalism” would reproduce natural processes by converting waste output into useful inputs for production, thereby minimizing environmental externalities (Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins, 1999). Hawken struggled within his own enterprise, Smith and Hawken, for policies with favorable environmental consequences, and now has undertaken a broader advocacy role. He has demonstrated integrity in his efforts to lead business toward a comprehensive settlement with the environment. He recognizes that this requires innovative management and institution building. Filene and Hawken combined business leadership with community initiatives, with the construction of forums for social dialog and experimentation. Filene founded the Twentieth Century Fund to support research on social problem solving. Hawken has been active with the Global Business Network and Natural Step, two international organizations committed to advancing environmentally sound management. Both found particular offices and organizations limiting with respect to their pragmatist sensibilities.

Pragmatist integrity is a demanding but not impossible standard. The experiences of Filene and Hawken provide some guidance as to the struggle required to bring pragmatist integrity to business. Although they attained prosperity as individuals, their critical stance toward business as usual brought them into conflict with many of their colleagues. Their achievements are evident in a pattern of experimentation that transcends the individual enterprise. Given the global economy, in which corporate leaders continue to exhibit insularity and insensitivity as to the treatment of stakeholders in distant realms, Filene and Hawken provided some indication of another way. REFERENCES Barry, B., & Stephens, C. U. (1998). Objections to an objectivist approach to integrity. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 162-169. Becker, T. E. (1998). Integrity in organizations: Beyond honesty and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 154-161. Buchholz, R. A., & Rosenthal, S. B. (1997, April). Business and society: What’s in a name. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5(2), 180-201. Carson, A. S. (1995, Winter). The nature of a moral business person. Review of Business, 17(2), 16-22. DeGeorge, R. (1993). Competing with integrity in international business. New York: Oxford University Press. Dewey, J. (1920). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York: Henry Holt. Dewey, J. (1939). The democratic form. In J. Ratner & E. A. Post (Eds.), Intelligence in the modern world (pp. 400-404). New York: Random House. Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York: Dover. Dewey, J. (1983). Human nature and conduct. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works, 1899-1924 (Vol. 14, pp. 146-153). Carbondale and Edwardsville: University of Southern Illinois Press. Dewey, J. (1985). Ethics. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works, 1925-1853 (Vol. 7, pp. 262-310). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Filene, E. A. (1924). The way out: A forecast of coming changes in American business and industry. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page. Frederick, W. (2000). Pragmatism, nature, and norms. Business and Society Review, 105(4), 467-479. Freedom of Information Center. (2002). Enron suicide note disclosed. Retrieved September 8, 2003 , from http://foi.missouri.edu/enronandetal/suicidenote.html Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. (1984). What do unions do? New York: Basic Books.

Jacobs / PRAGMATISM AND INTEGRITY IN BUSINESS ETHICS Freeman, R. B., & Rogers, J. (1999). What workers want. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, H. (1999). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution. New York: Little, Brown. KPMG. (2003). KPMG Advisory services. Retrieved September 2, 2003, from www.kpmg.co.uk/kpmg/uk/services/ audit/SUSTAIN/advisory.cfm LeClair, D. C., Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. P. (1998). Integrity management: A guide to managing legal and ethical issues in the workplace. Tampa, FL: University of Tampa Press. Locke, E. E., & Becker, T. E. (1998). Rebuttal to a subjectivist critique of an objectivist approach to integrity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 170-175. Margolis, J. (1998, July). Psychological pragmatism and the imperative of aims: A new approach for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 409-430. Orlitzky, M., & Jacobs, D. (1998). A candid and modest proposal: The brave new world of objectivism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 656-658. Oxford English Dictionary. (1989). Integrity. Retrieved September 8, 2003, from http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/ display/00118587?keytype=ref&ijkey=4mZl6edyr1Wz2 Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 106-117. Peck, M. S. (1987). The different drum: Community making and peace. New York: Simon & Schuster.

223

Peikoff, L. (1991). Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Meridian. Rand, A. (1964). The virtue of selfishness: A new concept of egoism. New York: Signet. Simon, H. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. American Economic Review, 69(4), 493. Solomon, R. C. (1992). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. New York: Oxford University Press. Vecchio, R. P. (1988). Organizational behavior. Chicago: Dryden Press. Wicks, T., & Freeman, E. R. (1998). Organization studies and the new pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science, 9(2), 123-140. Wren, D. A., & Greenwood, R. G. (1998). Management innovators: The people and ideas that have shaped modern business. New York: Oxford University Press. DAVID C. JACOBS is a professor of management at Hood College in Frederick, Maryland. He previously taught at Kansas State University, the University of Michigan-Flint, and American University. Jacobs is author of Collective Bargaining as an Instrument of Social Change and Business and the Power Structure in America as well as coauthor, with Joel Yudken, of The Internet, Organizational Change, and Labor. He has written several essays about altruism and self-interest as they relate to union and business decision making in academic and professional journals.