Models of Management Morality for the New Millennium

Author(s): Archie B. Carroll

Source: Business Ethics Quarterly , Apr., 2001, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 365-371
Published by: Cambridge University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3857754

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Business Ethics Quarterly

This content downloaded from

180.253.162.17 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:35:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MODELS OF MANAGEMENT MORALITY
FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM

ArchieB. Carroll

Abstract: This paper is the presidential address to the Society for

Business Ethics presented during its annual meeting in Chicago,
Illinois, on August 7, 1999. The paper discusses three models of
management morality and considers their applicability for thinking
about business ethics in the new millennium. The moral management
model, in particular, is discussed in contrast to the moral market
model, which was presented in the previous year's presidential
address by John Boatright. Immoral Management, Moral Management,
and Amoral Management are considered and two hypotheses about
the presence of amorality within the management population and
individual managers are reflected upon.

I. Introduction

As we
that standaddress
I should on themy threshold
commentsoftoday
a new millennium,
toward I feel for
my predictions someourexpectation
field as we transition into the next century. If you are like me, however, you are
probably more interested in what impact the Y2K bug will have on your personal
and professional lives, and once we pass that date we will carry on with our
"business as usual" approach, not really thinking we are actually in a new
millennium and that things should be noticeably different.
Anyway, I am not a futurist?a John Naisbett?who spends his life predict?
ing societal trends, so it is not likely that my views on this subject would carry
much weight anyway, even if I had such predictions. Predicting the "business
ethics" outlook for the next century would surely be akin to predicting the stock
market, and I think we all have seen how difficult that has been in recent years.
I must confess, however, that I do get amusement out of the predictions for
our society that are sometimes found in the comic strips. One of my favorites is
Kudzu. I don't know if you read Kudzu, or are aware of it, but it features a
preacher who is typically holding forth on some subject or another, usually tak?
ing an irreverent swipe at organized religion. One of his recent comic strips was,
perhaps, applicable to the state of ethics in our country today. In the four panels
of the comic strip, Kudzu is looking at a map of the U.S. as he says:

?2001. Business Ethics Quarterly, Volume 11, Issue 2. ISSN 1052-150X. pp. 365-371

This content downloaded from

180.253.162.17 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:35:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
366 BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

With that chronic scandal fatigue syndrome settling in acros

we can expect more apologies from high places . . .

widely scattered mea culpas . . .

and general sorriness into the next century!

I have no idea whether Kudzu is correct in his predictio

think it is safe to say that nothing is on the horizon to c
moral climate we face in business and organizations then
different from what we face right now. At least, that is m
came here for predictions. (Of course, I'm not a "spiritua
Kudzu claims to be.)
As I was thinking about this address and what its topic s
help but reflect on John Boatright's presidential address l
You may remember that it was entitled "Does Business Et
take?" In that talk, John spent some time contrasting the
with what he proposed as the Moral Market Model. John
about this Moral Market Model, which he said reflects mor
Chicago school of economics, as we counted down toward t
Chicago. Well, John, I've thought about it, and I'm sure i
but I think I'm going to leave that one to you, as I don't I h
right now, in spite of our being here in Chicago.
Instead, I want to make some further remarks about the Mo
Actually, I want to elaborate on three models of management m
about initially in a 1987 article entitled "In Search of the M
article, I concluded that the Moral Managers were so hard to f
scape was so cluttered with Immoral Managers and, especial
The three models of management morality I articulated t
have written a fair amount since, were Moral Managemen
ment, and Amoral Management.
I have found it useful to think about management behav
three ethical models, or archetypes, because I believe they
able base points for discussion and comparison, especially fo
and students of business ethics.
The media, social activists, and perhaps we academics as well have focused
so much on immoral or unethical behavior that we seem to have downplayed t
possibility of other ethical types. For example, scant attention has been given
the subtle distinction that may be made between those activities that are im
moral and those that are amoral. Similarly, little attention has been given t
contrasting these two forms of behavior with moral, or ethical, management.
I would like to take a few moments to characterize each of these models, a
see them, as I think there is value in this way of thinking about the manageme
population found in business and organizations today.

This content downloaded from

180.253.162.17 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:35:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: CARROLL 367

//. Immoral Management

Let's consider Immoral Management first, as this mo

fairly easy to describe and there are ample illustrations
moral Management, management decisions and actio
active opposition to what is considered ethical. Decision
cordant with accepted and valued ethical principles. An
is moral is implied. The motives of Immoral Managers
about their own or their organization's gains. Legal stan
ers that must be overcome, and the strategy is to exploit op
or organizational gain. In short, Immoral Managers are t
the black hats. In the interest of time, I will spare you t
of Immoral Management, for you know them well, and
can't resist recalling Ivan Boesky, the infamous insider
I remember an article David Vogel wrote for the Wa
years ago, in which he posed the question, "Would an e
Ivan Boesky?" Vogel concluded, "no," an ethics cours
Ivan Boesky. Boesky could be thought of as one of the
ers. There probably is not much we can do for imm
perhaps, use what someone has referred to as the "spr
eliminating them. The way this works is this. Companie
consultant comes in and conducts a few training sessio
the company with a little ethics, and then everyone p
will be gone. (Sounds like a pest exterminator, doesn't it
works, for like many species of cockroaches, who over
mune to bug spray, immoral managers develop this sam
the positive side, however, it gives a few ethics consult
doesn't it?) I read somewhere about a consultant who wa
tives give their companies an "ethical flea dip." I guess t

///. Moral Management

In striking contrast to the Immoral Management Mod

ment Model. In Moral Management, decision makers vigo
standards of ethical behavior. These standards are both
tional. Ethical leadership is a principal characteristic of
managers want to succeed, but only within the confin
cepts. Moral managers are interested in profits, but they
within the confines of legal obedience?the letter and th
typically regard the law as an ethical minimum and they
ing well above what the law mandates.
The strategy in this model is to pursue financial oppo
ing a leadership position when ethical situations arise.
on the point, on the cutting edge, searching out where ethi

This content downloaded from

180.253.162.17 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:35:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
368 BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

to arise and proactively addressing these with respect to a

take a moment to mention how the moral management m
consistent with others' writings and insights.
The Moral Management Model would be consistent wit
"integrity strategy" set forth by Lynn Sharp Paine (1994). Th
is characterized by a conception of ethics as the driving fo
In the integrity strategy, ethical values shape managemen
nities, the design of organizational systems, and the dec
Organizational ethics, in this view, helps to define what
what it stands for. And, this has overtones of enterprise leve
as it has been articulated by Ed Freeman (1984), doesn't
The Moral Management Model would embrace moral im
is discussed by Pat Werhane in her new book Moral Imag
ment Decision Making (1999). As she observes, moral imag
and applied. She goes on to say that "moral imagination e
common morality into decision processes and moral judg
Finally, Moral Management is consistent with the themes
Ciulla, in her book Ethics, The Heart of Leadership (1998
others of you advocate some form ofthe Moral Manageme
I don't have time to name each one of you.

IV. Amoral Management

Finally, let's turn our attention to amoral management
important category through my experiences working wit
nars on business ethics, and in identifying a number of d
organizational life that did not readily lend themselves
immoral. It became quickly apparent to me that a distin
between intentional amoral management and unintention
First, let me recap intentional amorality. Intentiona
consciously decide for themselves that ethics and bus
Amoral managers of this type do not factor ethical con
decision making and actions because they believe bus
outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply. The
cern for ethics is too Sunday-schoolish and not appro
competitive world of business.
They simply think that different rules apply in busines
of life. Therefore, the concept of thinking ethically is not
the business domain. In intentional amorality, ethics hav
or organizational thinking, policy, decisions, or practices
teach in business schools, the classic intentionally amora
the typical finance professor or some economics professo
For those of us familiar with Albert Z. Carr's classic article "Is business bluff?
ing ethical?" (1968), I would say that the kind of "game ethics" that he describe

This content downloaded from

180.253:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: CARROLL 369

as employed in poker might be an example of inte

trate, Carr says that "bluffing" in poker would not
part ofthe game. By the same token, the intentional
that deception in business is not unethical, it's just
Richard DeGeorge has been concerned with inten
In multiple editions of his Business Ethics textbook
edition (1999), he has exposed this myth of amoral
that business people can and should manage their b
to ethical considerations.
Now, let me tum to the Unintentionally Amoral Management Model, for this i
the category with which I am most concerned. Like intentionally amoral manager
unintentionally amoral managers do not think about business activity in ethical ter
either, but for different reasons. These managers are simply casual about, careles
about, or inattentive to the fact that their activities may have deleterious effect
others. These managers lack ethical perception, sensitivity, or ethical awaren
That is, they blithely go through their organizational lives not thinking that wh
they are doing has an ethical dimension or facet to it. In fact, they may be so eth
cally unconscious that they have not ever really thought about the question of whe
ethics applies to their work or not. These managers are well-intentioned and prob
ably think of themselves as ethical persons. In fact, they fall far short of the Mo
Manager Model that I depicted earlier.
Unintentionally amoral management is an approach in which the manag
ethical gears are nonexistent, or if they do exist, are in neutral, or are strip
To their credit, these amoral managers will probably comply with the law, to
extent that they know it exists, but will do little more. In a sense, they mi
adhere to Lynn Sharp Paine's "compliance strategy." However, Paine's comp
ance strategy is lawyer-driven and is more focused on minimal compliance.
The compliance strategy envisions managers as rational maximizers of s
interest, indifferent to the moral legitimacy of their choices?a far cry from
integrity strategy or the Moral Management Model.
All this discussion of amoral managers reminds me of a quote by the lat
Army General Omar Bradley, who fifty years ago stated that "the world h
achieved brilliance without conscience." Bradley went on to say that "ours
world of nuclear giants and ethical infants."[And this was in 1948!] Like in
fants, I think many managers' ability to think ethically has not been learned
has not matured.

As we think about the three models of management morality I've described,

I have proposed two possible hypotheses about their existence in the manage?
ment population, and in managers, and I think these hypotheses are relevant as
we transition into the next century.
First, there is the Population Hypothesis. The Population Hypothesis holds that
the distribution of these three moral types in the total management population ap-
proximates a bell-shaped curve, with the Immoral Managers and Moral Managers

This content downloaded from

180.253.162.17 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:35:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
370 BUSINESS ETHICS QUARTERLY

occupying the two tails of the curve, and the Amoral Man
tionally Amoral Managers, occupying the broad middle gro
I have no large-scale empirical data to support this hypothe
topic such as this might be impossible to do, but my interact
executive development settings, in personal conversations,
dents with ethical implications in the business press lead me t
Equally disturbing as the belief that amorality is so com
managerial population is my alternative or second hypot
Hypothesis. My Individual Hypothesis is that within the a
three models may operate at various times and under va
That is, the average manager may be amoral most ofthe t
a moral or immoral mode on occasion, based on a variety
Like my first hypothesis, I have no large-scale empirical su
tion, but my talks with managers indicate that it resonat
have observed and experienced.

V. Facing the Future

In any event, I'm inclined to see the challenge of the A

Model as the most serious ethical problem we academics w
transition into the year 2000. This is expected whether th
within the students we teach (where I find considerable am
leagues (especially in finance and economics), or amon
population with which we interact.
The good news is that we have a greater probability of succ
Managers than with the Immoral Managers. I'm not sure
made good, at least by human means. With amorality, on
lieve this is where the potential lies for those of us who
educators. If this were not true, why would most of us he
ethics? Surely, it is because we believe that there is a fair
floating around out there in the business environment that n
Time does not permit me to fully describe the directio
move to address this problem. Suffice it to say for the m
direction of developing mature, moral judgment, a topic
heart ofthe business ethics field and represents a quest to
one present today is committed. Many of you in attendan
much on this subject.
Our goal, I believe, is to do what we can to develop Moral M
move students and managers in that direction. I don't want to
the Moral Market Model, which John Boatright called us to c
the quest for the Moral Management Model is implicit in wha
By reasoning together how we might develop this capac
acting ethically," of growing in our ability for principled rea
ating and sustaining moral organizations, I believe we will

This content downloaded from

180.253.162.17 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: CARROLL 371

of the Society for Business Ethics and our individua

ics educators for years to come.
Let me close by saying that there is so much to do
but someone must do it, so why not us?

References

Boatright, John R. 1998. "Does Business Ethics Rest on a Mistake?" Preside

Address to the Society for Business Ethics, San Diego, CA, August 6-9, 19
Business Ethics Quarterly 9 (1999): 583-591.
Carr, Albert Z. 1968. "Is Business Bluffling Ethical?" Harvard Business Review 46:
Carroll, Archie B. 1987. "In Search of the Moral Manager." Business Horizo
March-April, pp. 7-15.
_1991. "The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral
Management of Organizational Stakeholders." Business Horizons 34: 39-48.
_. 1995. "Stakeholder Thinking in Three Models of Management Morality:
A Perspective with Strategic Implications." In Understanding Stakeholder
Thinking, ed. Juha Nasi, pp. 47-74. Helsinki: LSR Publications.
Carroll, Archie B. and Ann K. Buchholtz. 2000. Business and Society: Ethics and
Stakeholder Management, 4th Edition. Cincinnati: South-Western College
Publishing.
Ciulla, Joanne. 1998. Ethics, The Heart of Leadership. Westport, Conn.: Praeger
Publishers.

DeGeorge, Richard T. 1999. Business Ethics, 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River, N.
Prentice-Hall.

Freeman, R. Edward. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston

Pitman.

Paine, Lynn Sharp. 1994. "Managing for Organizational Integrity." Harvard Business
Review, March-April, pp. 106-117.
Werhane, Patricia H. 1999. Moral Imagination and Management Decision Making
New York: Oxford University Press.

This content downloaded from

180.253.162.17 on Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:35:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms