Algorithmic management is deeply changing the way work is performed and the interaction between managers and workers in organizations. It also heavily affects the conditions for meaningful work highlighted by existing literature. Therefore, organizations need an appropriate framework to enable meaningful work when adopting algorithmic management systems. This article presents a normative study of the conditions for work to be meaningful in this new scenario. To fulfil this purpose, it adopts a MacIntyrean approach, according to which work is meaningful when it embodies practice-like characteristics. The article identifies the main threats of algorithmic management and characterizes the normative conditions organizations should meet to enable meaningful work. In addition, the article explores the strategies of resistance that workers use to live up to the standards of meaningful work when organizations are not capable or willing to provide those conditions.

Political theory increasingly intersects with business ethics. A notable example is the application of philosopher Jürgen Habermas by Scherer and Palazzo, along with their interpreters, to advocate for the “politicization of the corporation” and “Political Corporate Social Responsibility” (PCSR). Consequently, business ethics focused on corporations also becomes politicized. From a Habermasian perspective, this politicization offers legitimacy through deliberation and consensus. However, a less represented perspective in business ethics discourse—legal philosopher Carl Schmitt’s—highlights the darker sides of politicization, viewing it as an intensification of enmity. This shift undermines the unique ethical-reflective nature of business ethics.

While from an instrumental perspective stakeholder relations can promote sustained competitive advantage, normative arguments underscore the importance of morally informed principles, especially when relational strategies have uncertain future outcomes and are prone to imitation. This study investigates how such instrumental and normative views can be complementary based on the case study of Natura, a cosmetics company procuring natural inputs from the Amazon rainforest via supplier relations that are open to multiple parties, including competitors. The research shows that Natura developed and reinforced a morally informed normative core specifying how the company and its managers should act. This resulted in a long-term commitment to the open relational strategy, especially when future outcomes were largely uncertain, which in turn promoted emergent instrumental gains via deepened relational attachments and substantive stakeholder engagement. Importantly, the company’s controlling shareholders strongly influenced the normative core, thus underscoring the importance of identifying key shareholders and their values.

Using a relational leadership lens, this study aims to gain a deeper understanding of empathic conversations with a focus on leadership ethics. It adopts an entitative perspective in relational leadership and examines leadership conversations as a two-way influence relationship, highlighting their interdependencies and collective role in the co-construction of meaning. Data from facial expression software and perception surveys are analyzed. The results of this study reveal the influence of gendered leadership on emotions, emotional bonding moments triggered by humor, and cultural dynamics in leadership conversations. Leaders’ feeling-based questions and participants’ willingness to share their emotions, coupled with emotion synchronization, create a constructive space where both feel invited, cared for, and valued. The study shows that emotional bonds foster the expression of generosity, care, and responsibility, enhancing satisfaction for both leaders and participants. Overall, this study enriches relational leadership theory and practice by underscoring the connection between empathy and leadership ethics.

How does a role—whether in business, law, government, or some other institution—change what is morally permissible or obligatory? Here I present three options and argue for the third. On the balancing model, a role simply gives its occupant additional normative reasons, to be weighed against all other normative reasons. On the shielding model, a role comes with its own moral code, blocking the force of all role-external reasons. On the filtering model, a role selectively filters its occupant’s reasons for action, creating obligations or permissions to act on a narrowed range of considerations. I argue that the filtering model offers a superior analysis of the ethics of roles, including the concepts of professional integrity and discretion. I focus on three difficult cases: a nuclear safety regulator, a criminal defense lawyer, and a corporate lobbyist. I conclude by discussing the implications of the filtering model for business ethics.