This paper develops and explores a pedagogical innovation for integrating virtue theory into business students’ basic understanding of general management. Eighty-seven students, in 20 groups, classified three managers’ real-time videotaped activities according to an elaboration of Aristotle’s cardinal virtues, Fayol’s management functions, and Mintzberg’s managerial roles. The study’s empirical evidence suggests that, akin to Fayol’s functions and Mintzberg’s roles, Aristotle’s virtues are also amenable to operationalization, reliable observation, and meaningful description of managerial behavior. The study provides an oft-called-for empirical basis for further work in virtue theory as an appropriate conceptual framework for the study and practice of management. The results indicate that virtue theory may be used to re-conceive our fundamental understanding of management, alongside its capacity to weigh moral judgment upon it. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Business myth is generally treated in business ethics literature as a mental obstacle that must be removed in order to prepare the ground for rational thinking on the ethical aspect of business conduct. This approach, which focuses on the content of myth, does not explicate the nature and function of myth. Based on the study of myth in the fields of humanities and social sciences, this paper develops a theoretical framework and analytical tool—the revolving-door model—for researching myth in business. The proposed framework (1) offers new perspectives on myth: the consumer’s, the producer’s, the mythologist’s, and the ethicist’s; (2) explicates various distortion mechanisms of the myth; and (3) enables a redefinition of the relation of business myth to business ethics. The applicability of this framework is demonstrated by means of a real case which sets the stage for examining a set of common myths.

A group of economists has recently begun addressing questions at the intersection of ethics and economics. They are preparing new definitions of individual choice that combine self-interest and other-interest, new processes of interpersonal exchange that result in cooperation rather than conflict, and new measures of social well-being that include rights as well as outcomes. This article surveys that work, and suggests areas where conceptual inputs from business ethicists are clearly needed, and where multiple opportunities for interactive research are obviously present.

This paper presents the results of and conclusions from a survey of 2,830 college and university undergraduate business and philosophy departments regarding their business ethics offerings. The impetus for this survey included seeking a better understanding of the problems for which business ethics courses are the solution. It was proposed that, if we knew what it is that professors teaching business ethics believe they are teaching—not in terms of content or methods, but in terms of what criteria they are using to assess students’ achievement of the course objectives—we would have a better understanding of what issues business ethics attempts to resolve. The survey focused on ranking six possible assessment criteria drawn from the literature on teaching business ethics.

In addition to disclosing the specific survey results, the paper draws conclusions based on the fact that there are statistically significant differences between the rankings assigned to the six assessment criteria by business professors as contrasted with philosophy professors. The results of the survey indicate that there is more uniformity expressed in the responses by the philosophy professors teaching business ethics than by the business professors.

Organizational justice and injustice are widely noted influences on employees’ ethical behavior. Corporate ethics programs also raise issues of justice; organizations that fail to “follow-through” on their ethics policies may be perceived as violating employees’ expectations of procedural and retributive justice. In this empirical study of four large corporations, we considered employees’ perceptions of general organizational justice, and their perceptions of ethics program follow-through, in relation to unethical behavior that harms the organization, and to employees’ willingness to help the organization by reporting ethical problems and issues to management. Results show that when employees perceive general organizational justice and ethics program follow-through, there is less unethical behavior and greater willingness to report problems. General justice and ethics program follow-through also interact with each other, showing that the impact of ethics initiatives is influenced by the organizational context.

Phillips and Margolis argue that moral philosophy is a poor basis for business ethics, but their narrow view of moral philosophy would exclude Aristotle, for one. They criticize me for assimilating states and organizations in using the Rawlsian device, but they put too much faith in Rawls’s distinction between states and voluntary organizations and pay too little attention to the continuities between them. Their plea for a conceptually autonomous ethics for organizations I interpret as reasonable and largely compatible with my own stated opinion.