Leadership and Business
A. L. Minkes
Ethics: Does It Matter?
Implications for Management
ABSTRACT. This paper reviews the relationship
between organisational leadership, corporate gover-
nance and business ethics, and considers the implica-
tions for management. Business ethics is defined, and
the causes and consequences of unethical behavior are
discussed. Issues pertaining to leadership, subordinate
and organisation responsibility for business ethics are
considered. The changing role of business leaders
and the new concept of ‘corporate governance’ are
examined, with an increasing importance being placed
on ethical and socially responsible attitudes towards
business. Organisational effectiveness and organisa-
tional efficiency, formerly central issues for practising
managers, with directors thinking in terms of goal
achievement for their respective organisations, have
now been augmented by an awareness of issues in
business ethics, and a requirement for members of the
corporate governance to behave in more socially
responsible ways. A secondary aim of the paper is to
introduce an approach which illustrates how corpo-
rate governance and management could deal with
some of the moral dilemmas that they may have to
face.
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to consider the
relevance of ethical behaviour to business organ-
isations, and its relationship to the function of
Leonard Minkes is Emeritus Professor of Business Organ-
isation, University of Birmingham and a Fellow of the
Royal Society of Arts. Professor Minkes was educated
at Balliol College, Oxford: he is resident in Oxford and
is engaged in research projects there and elsewhere.
Michael Small teaches business ethics and management in
Curtin Business School, Western Australia.
Samir Chatterejee teaches leadership and international man-
agement in Curtin Business School, Western Australia.
Journal of Business Ethics 20: 327–335, 1999.
© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
M. W. Small
S. R. Chatterjee
leadership including the relatively new concept
of ‘corporate governance’. The main propositions
in the paper are:
a. that ethical behaviour is concerned with
‘ought’ and ‘ought not’, and implies that
there are standards which may extend
beyond what is required by law or which
are commercially profitable.
b. that conformity to ethical requirements is
a responsibility of, and depends on the
leadership in an organisation.
c. that the argument has significant implica-
tions for corporate governance (Crainer,
ed., 1995).
There are well-known difficulties in defining the
term ‘leadership’ and in specifying what is meant
by ‘ethics’ in the context of business behaviour,
difficulties which have been rehearsed recently in
the Journal of Business Ethics (Small, 1995). The
present authors do not pretend to resolve those
difficulties and for the purposes of this paper the
following guidelines have been taken:
a. leadership is to be interpreted at two levels;
the first is the locus of those decisions
which determine the basic direction of an
enterprise. Authority may be vested in a
top individual, a dominant group, a board
of directors;
b. leadership may be exercised at a second
level or series of levels, at functional,
departmental, divisional levels. In other
words, the authors do not confine the
concept of leadership to ‘the boss’ (Minkes
and Nuttall, 1985; Minkes, 1987).
The idea that ‘ethics’ is concerned with pre-
328 A. L. Minkes et al.
scribing – as well as describing – moral require-
ments and behaviours, means that there are
acceptable and unacceptable ways of behaviour,
which are in some sense a function of philo-
sophical principles. The source of such standards
of behaviour is not at all clear, but that they often
influence what happens can hardly be disputed.
It can be seen that this approach is intimately
bound up with ideas of responsibility and
accountability and with the conventions of
behaviour, i.e. understood modes, as well as with
explicit legal or other regulations (McMahon
cited in Small, 1995, pp. 673–681). In societies
in which moral values are under increasing
scrutiny, in which there is widespread perception,
justified or otherwise, that white collar crime is
increasing, that there are serious improprieties
in government transactions, and that corporate
excesses are commonplace, the themes of business
ethics are inescapable and significant. Recent dis-
cussions in Australia and Britain, for example,
which have centred on corporate governance, the
functions of non-executive directors, the role of
small shareholders and the question of salary
increases for the chief executives of privatised
utilities in Britain, reinforce this view.1
There is one other general point which
belongs in this introduction. Critics of the intru-
sion of business ethics into debate and curricula
often insist on one of two views. They some-
times adopt a sceptical stance; ‘there ain’t no such
animal’; or, they take what is sometimes seen as
the Friedman view that the business of managers
is to maximise returns to the shareholders and
not to impose their ethical values on the
company at its commercial expense. These are
serious criticisms, but the argument of the
present paper rests on the presumption, already
indicated, that ‘ought’ questions are inescapable
for a variety of reasons. Managers do have stan-
dards, both explicit and implicit, of what it is
appropriate to do or not to do. Rosabeth Moss
Kanter (1989) has argued, in fact that:
while business ethics have always been important
from a social and moral point of view, they also
become a pragmatic requirement in the corporate
Olympics. The doing-more-with-less strategies
place an even greater premium on trust than did
the adversarial-protection business practices of the
traditional corporation.
Similar considerations apply in the growth of
joint ventures and alliances.
Ethics, leadership and organisational
climate
In any organisation there is likely to be a climate
of opinion and behaviour which is reflected
both in the perceptions of members of what is
expected of them, and in their expectations as
to what they are likely to receive in response to
their performance. It is widely accepted that part
of the function of the leadership in the organi-
sation is to articulate those expectations and to
establish the ‘norms that govern the behaviour of
people in organisations’ (Bennis and Nannus,
1985). In a narrow sense this might merely mean
that employees in an organisation conform to
what they believe is acceptable to their superor-
dinates . . . ‘doing what the guy above you
wants’. In a wider sense, however, it may mean
that a pattern of values expressed in an explicit
code or in shared understanding will permeate
the organisational environment. For example, the
Quaker origins of the Cadbury family profoundly
influenced attitudes towards employees. Or again,
Halford Reddish held it as a value in Rugby
Portland Cement when he was Chairman of the
company, that no employee should be dismissed
(if this was at all avoidable) provided that he or
she was honest and worked satisfactorily.2
To the guidelines stated above, that top lead-
ership is concerned with the decisions which
determine the direction of enterprise – decisions
which govern its product-market scope – may be
added the idea that the dominant mode of trans-
lating values into the functioning mode of an
organisation is through the ethos established by
the leadership. But this ethos or set of ethical
propositions has to be translated into everyday
attitudes and behaviour. Murphy (1989) has stated:
. . . a leader’s support of ethical conduct is more
likely to occur when actively managed by someone
with narrower or more focused duties.
 Leadership and Business Ethics
Another way of putting this, however, is to re-
emphasise the point already made, that leader-
ship is required at more than one level in an
organisation. Moreover, it is characteristically at
intermediate levels below the board of directors
that specific operational matters arise which may
test the feasibility of implementing general
ethics principles in particular instances. It is also
within the group or department that many of the
interactions occur which govern employees’
interpretation of what is or is not acceptable
behaviour. Thus, a company may have a formal
code of ethics and may give its assent to an
industry code, for example in respect of adver-
tising standards; or, in the sensitive area of news-
paper reporting may subscribe to such a code.
These codes will rapidly fall into contempt,
however much they are asserted by chief execu-
tives or editors, if managers or reporters are per-
ceived as behaving unethically. But equally, how
managers or reporters behave will depend in
large measure on the overall rules and established
conventions which are set at the top of the
organisaton.
An international perspective
The familiar adage ‘When in Rome do as the
Romans do’ has been passed down through the
centuries as a practical guide to general behav-
iour – which would include business relation-
ships.3 But in an environment of global activity,
of multinational companies, and of collaborative
ventures across national boundaries, there are
likely to be moral dilemmas if on the one hand,
firms seek to apply their own value systems to
business decisions in cultures other than their
own and on the other hand, firms required to
‘do as the Romans do’ may find this at odds with
their own attitudes.
Thus, the increased interdependence of inter-
national business may, paradoxically, go hand
in hand with a potential for conflict within
and between multinational enterprises and may
impinge on business relationships. The use of
child labour in the Pakistani carpet making
industry for example, may cause friction, as may
the sale of out of date or questionable medical
329
supplies to developing countries. There may also
be situations in which individuals from different
cultures have apparently similar moral values, but
may apply them in a variety of ways because they
attach different weights to several moral values
arising in a particular situation.
Causes and consequences of unethical
behaviour
What causes CEO’s and managing directors of
organisations to act unethically? The common-
place attitude of what good is ethics if the
business has to be liquidated, and dismiss all its
employees, is one ground for unethical behav-
iour and indeed, this may be regarded not so
much as unethical but as an ethical dilemma.
Badaracco (1989, 1995) has written that there are
ways of resolving the moral dilemmas of man-
agement which are clear, simple, and misleading.
But this is too dismissive of a real problem and
rests on the presumption, which is not self-
evident, that although ethical behaviour may
immediately result in the loss of short-term
profits, it will necessarily be of long-term benefit
to the organisation. It assumes that both ethics
and profit are important for the survival, growth
and success of an organisation and that the con-
sequences of unethical behaviour can give com-
panies or industries a bad name and damage their
results and prospects.
Hitt (1990) argued that management had two
key responsibilities: (i) to ensure that ethical deci-
sions were made; and (ii) to develop an organi-
sational climate in which ethical conduct by staff
was fostered. Other writers have focussed on two
principles: (i) to clarify and make explicit the
ethical dimensions of decisions; and (ii) to for-
mulate and justify ethical principles. Both these
principles ensure that the importance of ethical
leadership as deciding responsibility in a complex
context is achieved. A significant issue is deciding
who is responsible for business ethics within an
organisation; but in reality ethics is everyone’s
responsibility. Pastin (1986, pp. 221–225) argued
that the characteristics of highly ethical organi-
sations included: (i) individuals who assumed
personal responsibility for the actions of the
330 A. L. Minkes et al.
organisation (i.e. individuals were responsible for
themselves); (ii) an obsession with fairness with
an emphasis on the other person; (iii) being com-
fortable with interacting with external groups;
and (iv) tying all activities in with an overall
purpose. But senior organisational personnel in
such an organisation would have a critical role to
perform in identifying ethical issues and problems
for organisations and in establishing the idea that
they are a significant part of the managerial task.
The potential disparity between corporate
profitability and social responsibility is best rep-
resented in the often conflicting gains for com-
panies through business practices that have a
negative impact on society at large. Donaldson
(1989) referred to this as trade-off between profit
and ethics or morals. For example, inappropriate
disposal of waste materials could reduce a
company’s costs. Conversely, it might have a sig-
nificant negative impact on the environment.
The balance therefore between corporate prof-
itability and social responsibility was almost a
daily decision faced by executives in an organi-
sation. Referring to the emergent ethical organ-
isation, Reidenbach et al. (1991) described such
an organisation as one in which an organisational
leader sought to create a climate where there was
a balance between profits and ethics to realize a
desired ethical climate.4
Corporate competition is also an issue.
Competition for more customers and increased
market share are two factors which drive com-
petition between companies and corporations.
The extent to which an organisation is prepared
to act (un)ethically to achieve these outcomes can
more often than not be traced to its executives.
Similarly, competition relating to incentives such
as promotion, pay increases and recognition
between individuals within and between organ-
isational levels is part of modern corporate life.
Mitchell (1987) reframed this individual compe-
tition as the ethic of personal advantage.
Business CEO’s therefore have a significant
role to play in implementing an ethical culture
which Hitt (ibid.) referred to as clarifying the
values. The leader’s challenge is to ensure a high
degree of congruence between an organisation’s
guiding beliefs and the member’s daily beliefs, i.e.
changing rules and feelings about everyday
behaviour. Furthermore, managers should be able
to persuade an organisation to change and adopt
the new ethical culture. Consequently, empow-
erment of employees was a major requirement of
modern business leaders. Kouzes and Posner
(1987, p. 302) explained this by saying that
leaders who could not personally adhere to a firm
set of values, could not convince others of the
worthiness of those values. They argued that:
leaders demonstrate their commitment to a con-
sistent set of expectations by clarifying meaning,
unifying constituents and intensifying actions. This
process, repeatedly followed, earns and sustains
credibility over time.
Leaders without integrity were only putting on
an act; once values were agreed upon and in
place, the CEO should put them into practice.
Hitt (ibid.) proposed a plan along the fol-
lowing lines: (i) establish the organisation’s values;
(ii) determine the critical success factors (CSF’s)
associated with each value; (iii) maintain a
balanced view of values across the organisation;
(iv) communicate these to all members; and (v)
reward adherence to the values. In a corporate
setting, many people could be involved in com-
pleting a given unethical action. In most
instances the corporation would be held account-
able rather than an individual, although the tra-
ditional view held that all who contributed
willingly were responsible. In a later section in
the paper focusing on ‘Corporate Governance’,
examples are given where individual chairmen of
boards were held personally responsible for
certain actions of their boards.
Improving business ethics
Two basic problems have been outlined so far.
The first concerns the way organisations are
managed and how far this has regard to ethical
behaviour. The second is that managers are not
equipped to manage many of the interactions in
the organisations they lead. If, as a number of
writers have argued, ethical behaviour for all
executives in an organisation should be expected
and be the norm, then competency in dealing
with ethical issues is an area in which managers
 Leadership and Business Ethics
should develop. Thus Pinchot (1992) remarks
that:
it did require each of us (leaders) to begin culti-
vating our ethical competence with the same
enthusiasm we devoted to cultivating our technical,
marketing and financial skills.
The approach developed by Badaracco (1995,
p. 34) referred to later also supports this view.
Pinchot implies that morals and values can be
taught, and that managers should be able to dis-
tinguish between ethical and unethical behaviour.
Managers (directors of all kinds) should therefore
practise patience, and focus on long-term aspects
such as quality, service and employee retention,
rather than the short-term bottom-line aspects.
This is similar to Allinson’s (1995) idea of ‘eth-
ically centred management’ which does not see
itself ‘purely as a means for the scheduled com-
pletion of a project’. To be ‘ethically centred’
means for Allinson, priority for high quality stan-
dards in production, in employer-employee rela-
tions, and in product quality.
A number of steps have been identified that a
CEO could take in order to meet required stan-
dards. For example s/he could: (i) maintain a
journal of ethical problems with the executive’s
reactions and proposed solutions; (ii) discuss
ethical issues with other managers and colleagues
to formulate opinions; (iii) document a descrip-
tion of an ethical role model which is referred
to periodically; (iv) prepare a reading list for the
tyro manager in the area of business ethics; (v)
attend retreats and ‘live-in’ seminars; and (vi)
assess self-development through (quarterly) moral
audits. Such a program implies that business
executives would need to understand how atti-
tudes are developed and how an organisation and
its employees are influenced. Employees should
be encouraged to have an ethical approach to
business problems, and superordinates should
provide acceptable material and attitudinal con-
ditions. Within an organisation a number of
practical actions could be introduced by man-
agement such as: providing good physical con-
ditions and appropriate pay structures; supporting
the establishment of small working groups; facil-
itating a supportive management style; promoting
and developing a communicative organisational
331
structure; using audit committees effectively as
part of financial control; and strengthening the
role of non-executive directors. An interesting
example of related points of this kind has been
adumbrated by some leading executives in the
United States (Rosow, 1987).
Corporate governance
Establishing programmes, guidelines, codes of
conduct to promote a more ethical approach by
company directors might prove difficult. For
example, there might be problems in defining
and explaining the duties and standards expected,
and any interference with the ‘real’ tasks of the
business could be resented. Corporate gover-
nance – according to Maw (Crainer, ed., 1995,
p. 1053) “is a broad and yet inchoate topic”.
Cadbury (ibid., p. 1053) stated that corporate
governance was the system by which companies
were directed and controlled. Clearly, an area of
current interest, ‘corporate governance’ – the
term used here is inclusive of boards of directors,
non-executive or outside directors, and execu-
tive directors – has attracted it share of scepti-
cism. This has been so, for example, in
discussions of the role of non-executive direc-
tors in determining remuneration of their exec-
utive counterparts.
‘Corporate governance’ was the subject of a
major speech to the Institute of Chartered
Accountants in Perth, 14 June 1996 by Henry
Bosch, former National Companies and Secu-
rities Commission chief. Bosch, with great
panache, addressed the following questions: Why
is the role of directors changing so rapidly? What
changes can we expect in the next few years?
How can directors respond effectively to the new
challengers? An audience of chartered accoun-
tants heard Bosch list companies and organisa-
tions which had not shown “all due care and
diligence”. In one instance, the chairman of one
board was held personally liable for $A 97 m.;
in another case the chairman was fined
$A 10 000; in a third case a fine of $A 2 m. was
imposed. These were all well known Australian
cases. Bosch’s speech emphasized the notions of
‘responsibility’ and ‘accountability’; ‘care and
332 A. L. Minkes et al.

diligence’; and the actions that a prudent board an ethical imperative in the mission statement of
would take. The main responsibility for a board the organisation. This and other suggestions, he
was that it ought to know what was happening, says:
yet in some cases, the boards of directors had no
idea what was going on. Clearly, Henry Bosch’s could be incorporated so that both an inner moti-
comments on ‘corporate governance’ and the vation and an external structure can exist such that
standards of behaviour that should be followed, the moral responsibility for preventing global dis-
fall under the rubric of ‘business ethics’. They asters can become a normal function of the CEO
and a pervasive attitude of business enterprise in
also fall under the heading of organisation and
general.
control since there are genuine problems of infor-
mation flow in complex structures. Audit com-
Of course, what Allinson argues in the context
mittees were not referred to specifically, but in
of disaster management might be more widely
later discussions a number of accountants agreed
extended to other aspects of behaviour.
that audit committees, as exemplars of internal
Management should also establish a schedule
control, were the next obvious step in facilitating
of audits to monitor potential ethical problems
adequate provision for ‘responsibility’, ‘account-
within the organisation (or in the immediate
ability’ and ‘all due care and diligence’ within
outside environment) before they occur. Metzger
their spheres of responsibility.
et al. (1993) argued that these procedures would
Senior executives need to reduce the intra-
involve written instruments designed to deter-
organisational barriers to the open discussion of
mine an employee’s perception of the ethical
the moral issues as a first step. A CEO ought to
environment. An audit committee and employee
state clearly that ethical behaviour is the corner-
interviews with company auditors would test the
stone of his organisation, and support this
adequacy of existing policies and procedures.
position through words and actions. A statement
However, Metzger et al. believed that ethics
of values could be developed through ‘on-going’
audits in themselves were inadequate in that they
consultation with staff and communicated to
often failed to identify the root causes of uneth-
every employee. Establishing an ethics committee
ical behaviour in organizations.
or monitoring group which would be responsible
Rewarding ethical behaviour is a practice
for administering initiatives of an ethical nature
which ought to be developed. This need not be
to management should be a priority. Manage-
money, but could be recognition and praise.
ment would also promote a code of behaviour
Important as rewarding ethical behaviour is the
or conduct, provide advice to staff on ethical
identification of incentives which promote ethical
issues and consider sanctions for non-adherence.
behaviour. Metzger (ibid.) wrote that:
Company policy on major ethical issues would
be determined, documented and circulated, and numerous examples existed of reward systems
employees should be made aware of and become that were fouled up in that behaviors that were
familiar with the organisation’s policies on ethical rewarded were those which the rewarder was trying
matters. to discourage, while the behavior that he desired
Therefore, training sessions for staff should was not being rewarded at all.
demonstrate management’s commitment in this
regard. A vigorous education and re-training
program would thus seem to be the key for insti- Resolving ethical dilemmas
tutionalizing an awareness of ethical issues.
Allinson (1993) in his discussion of a number of In principle, the right answer in ethical issues
disasters, argued that a safety ethos was required might often be morally and legally clear; but in
in organisations.5 How can top management, he fact the outcome is not always so clear-cut. How
asks, be inspired to take on its role of moral actions are perceived and by whom may be
responsibility more seriously? One possible sug- crucial and while the ‘right’ answer may be clear
gestion would be to consider the building in of to some people, the same actions may be
 Leadership and Business Ethics
regarded as unethical practices. Consider, for
example, the ‘dumping’ of surplus products or
the cross-subsidising of some products within a
company’s portfolio of products.
The approach developed by Badaracco (ibid.,
p. 34) which offered some practical steps for
those charged with executive responsibility does
not seem to have generated the interest that
might have been expected. Badaracco proposed
four questions which provided a basic framework
for dealing with difficult dilemmas and which
could form the basis of in-house executive devel-
opment programs. For example, question one
asks: “which course of action will do the most
good and the least harm?” This question is based
on the theory and ideas of Jeremy Bentham,
James Mill, John Stuart Mill, and the theory of
utilitarianism, a doctrine which states that the
basis of morals is in ‘utility’. Actions are approved
or condemned by the extent to which certain
courses of action make the greater number of
people happier and/or better. For example, two
political issues which have been raging in
Western Australia can be defended on utilitarian
grounds. Example one concerns a run-down
(near derelict) brewery site currently being re-
developed into a riverside marina, which is fine,
according to the state government. The problem
is that the site is said to occupy an aboriginal
sacred site. In this case, the will of the majority
will override the wishes of the minority group
– the aboriginal group and their supporters. The
other example concerns a decision of the state
government to construct a tunnel under busy
streets, shopping areas, restaurants and so on.
Many people claim that they will be inconve-
nienced and put out of business. The govern-
ment’s view is that the great mass of people will
benefit by this action.6
Question two asks, “which alternative best
serves others’ rights, including shareholders’
rights?” Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of
Independence dealing with the morality of rights
(inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness) are closely involved here, although
John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Antoine
Nicholas de Condorcet or Immanuel Kant could
have been equally chosen with Jefferson. The
rights and/or entitlements of individuals to own
333
shares or stock and private property, are inherent
characteristics of the market economy, but they
may also be moderated by concepts of commu-
nity and externalities.
Question three asks, “what plan can I live
with, which is consistent with the basic values
and commitments of my company?” This
question could be approached by introducing
boards, directors, CEO’s to a selection of
Aristotle’s philosophy, e.g. ‘Nicomachean Ethics’,
‘Eudemian Ethics’, ‘On Virtues and Vices’, and
‘Politics’. How acceptable this would be even in
a full-time academic program is, however,
another matter. Badaracco writes that executives
could be asked to indicate the sort of comments
in relation to their life’s work they would like to
appear in their obituaries, which is probably a
more realistic approach.7
Question four asks, “what course of action is
feasible in the world as it is?” This approach
involves a study of Nicolo Machiavelli, who
advocated actions that are described in terms
such as ‘pragmatic’, ‘feasible’, ‘practical’ and
‘unscrupulous’. The Papal and the various Italian
States in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
have been described as corrupt. Comments in
Chapter XVIII of “The Prince” entitled “In
What Way Princes Must Keep Faith” could apply
to some of the more questionable practices of
today. For example, Machiavelli (1949, p. 77)
wrote:
One must therefore be a fox to recognise the traps,
and a lion to frighten the wolves;
and then (ibid., p. 79):
Thus it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane,
sincere, religious, and also to be so; but you must
have the mind so disposed that when it is needful
to be otherwise you may be able to change to the
opposite qualities.
These four questions should be considered
together, for they encapsulate the complexity of
ethical problems in general and in the business
context. Machiavelli appears to be saying ‘be kind
if possible, harsh if necessary’.
334 A. L. Minkes et al.
Conclusion
The main purpose of this paper was to look at
some of the linkages between organisational lead-
ership, corporate governance and business ethics,
and the implications which this relationship has
for management. Issues of leadership in a business
setting, responsibility for developing a business
ethics culture, and the changing role of corpo-
rate governance were considered and analysed.
The increasing emphasis being placed on
adopting a socially responsible approach to
business matters was also examined. The idea of
an ‘ethics program’ in a business corporation does
raise serious problems of definition and practi-
cability. Whose values are to constitute ethical
behaviour in the organisation and how are con-
flicts of values to be resolved? The problems may
appear intractable, but to pose them does not
imply that business has to resolve difficulties with
which philosophers have wrestled over centuries.
What it does imply is that there should be
explicit and understood standards of behaviour
which will be reflected in attitudes towards, say,
quality and safety. That there will have to be
pragmatic resolution or partial resolution of
moral dilemmas is unquestionable, but to say that
managers should behave as if they do not exist
is unreasonable. Thus, a primary emphasis in the
discussion of business ethics is that the topic
should take a place on the explicit agenda of
management.
The paper ends with a practical suggestion
which could assist boards, directors etc. how to
deal with ethical dilemmas which will occur in
a business environment. The writers believe
that this approach could form the basis of ‘in-
house’ executive development programs within
the context of a management/business ethics
approach.
Notes
1
It has been commented, however, ‘that malfeasance
and other forms of malpractice in business and admin-
istration were just as common in Greco-Roman times
as today’ (Small, 1993).
2
This is drawn from a view he expressed at a seminar
in the University of Birmingham a number of years
ago.
3
The original statement is attributed to Saint
Ambrose c.339–397 A. D. ‘Si fueris Romae, Romano
vivito more; Si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi.’.
4
The question of ‘Sunday opening’ of supermarkets
and similar outlets in the United Kingdom provides
an interesting example: Marks and Spencer resisted
the tendency to open in breach of the law as it then
stood, on grounds of principle.
5
His book Global Disasters is sub-titled Inquiries into
Management Ethics (1993).
Professor Roberts speaks of a ‘safety culture’ in his
lecture on ‘The Public Perception of Risk’, Journal of
the Royal Society of Arts, Vol. CXL(1), No. 5464,
November 1995.
6
But these examples illustrate the genuine difficulty
in such situations; majorities should not crush minori-
ties, but minorities should not dominate majorities.
The problem of conflict between economic develop-
ments and local community interests in the matter of
aircraft noise is another example.
7
It is not being suggested that a degree in Greats at
Oxford is the path towards business education, but it
suggests that there is something to be gained in that
direction by elements of a classical education.
References
Allinson, Robert E.: 1993, Global Disasters: Inquiries
into Management Ethics (Prentice Hall, Simon and
Schuster, Asia, Singapore).
Allinson, Robert E.: 1995, ‘A Call for Ethically-
centered Management’, Academy of Management
Executive 9(1).
Badaracco, Jr. Joseph L.: 1989, Leadership and the Quest
for Integrity (Harvard Business School Program,
Boston, Mass).
Badaracco, Jr. Joseph L.: 1995, Business Ethics Roles
and Responsibilities (Irwin, Chicago).
Bennis W. and B. Nannus: 1985, Leaders: The Strategies
for Taking Charge (Harper & Row, New York).
p. 186.
Bosch, Henry: 1996, ‘Speech to the Institute of
Chartered Accountants (W A Branch)’ (University
of Western Australia), 14 June, 1996.
Crainer, Stuart (ed.): 1995, The Financial Times
Handbook of Management (Pitman, London).
De George, Richard T.: 1995, Business Ethics, 4th ed.
(Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
 Leadership and Business Ethics
Donaldson J.: 1989, Key Issues in Business Ethics
(Academic Press, London).
Hitt, W. D.: 1990, Ethics and Leadership: Putting Theory
into Practice (Battelle Press, Columbus).
Kanter, Rosabeth M.: 1977, Men and Women of the
Corporation (Basic Books, New York).
Kanter, Rosabeth M.: 1989, When Giants Learn to
Dance (Simon and Schuster, London), p. 362.
Kouzes J. M. and B. L. Posner: 1987, The Leadership
Challenge ( Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).
Kouzes J. M. and B. L. Posner: 1992, ‘Ethical Leaders:
An Essay about Being in Love’, Journal of Business
Ethics 11, 479–484.
Machiavelli, N.: 1532/1949, The Prince (Oxford
University Press, London).
Metzger M. D., R. Dalton and J. W. Hill: 1993,
‘The Organisation of Ethics and The Ethics of
Organisations’, Business Ethics Quarterly 3(1), 27–
35.
Minkes, A. L.: 1987, The Entrepreneurial Manager:
Decisions, Goals and Business Ideas (Penguin,
Harmondsworth).
Minkes, A. L. and C. S. Nuttall: 1985, Business
Behaviour and Management Structure (Croom Helm,
London).
Mitchell, R.: 1987, ‘Jack Welch: How good a
335
Manager?’ Business Week, 14 December, pp. 92–
103.
Murphy P.: 1989, ‘Creating Ethical Corporate
Structures’, Sloan Management Review 30(2)
(Winter), pp. 81–87.
Pastin, M.: 1986, The Hard Problems of Management:
Gaining the Ethics Edge ( Jossey-Bass, Los Angeles).
Pinchot, G.: 1992, ‘Can We Afford Ethics?’ Executive
Excellence 9(3) (March), pp. 3–4.
Reidenbach, R. E. and D. P. Robin: 1991, ‘A
Conceptual Model of Corporate Model Develop-
ment, Journal of Business Ethics 10, pp. 273–284.
Rosow, Jerome M. (ed.): 1987, Views from the Top:
Establishing the Foundation for the Future Business
(Sphere Books, London, First published by Facts
on File Publications: 1985), see pp. 166–167 and
p. 185.
Small, M. W. (ed.): 1995, ‘Research on Business and
Public Sector Ethics: An Australasian Perspective’,
Journal of Business Ethics 14(8) (August).
Curtin Business School,
GPO Box U 1987,
6001 Perth, WA,
Australia.