You are on page 1of 9

Corporate Ethical Consulting:

Developing Management Strategies for


Corporate Ethics

ABSTRACT. The increase of scandals in the business sector


is forcing many companies to examine their corporate
ethical behavior with a view toward rebuilding their corporate value system. This article describes how value-system
reconstruction must proceed in a company and demonstrates that corporate ethics can only become plausible if
based on a corporate ethical ethos. It outlines afive-stepdevelopment plan of management strategies toward rebuildix^
a company's value system on this corporate ethos through:
corporate policy and strategy reformulation; corporate ethical code promulgation and value-statement formulation;
management ethical training and corporate ethical education; and corporate ethical performance evaluation. The role
of the corporate ethical consultant is also outlined to illustrate how corporate ethical consulting can provide the specialized services designed to insure an enduring management
ethical upgrading and to improve a company's corporate
ethical performance record. The discussion indicates how
corporate ethical consulting promotes good business
through its capacity to deliver industry credibility and company security.

Recent scandals among several major corporate


military contractors have resurrected the call for
corporate ethics in the defense industry. Such unethical practices as defective pricing, cost mischarg-

Richard Guerrette is a Research Fellow at Yale University Divinity


School, where he is conducting a research study in organization
management process and corporate ethia. He is also a Lecturer in
sociology at the University of Connecticut at Hartford and is an
author of two books on ecumenical minbtry and social movement
organization in the church. He has published extensively in
theological journals and has recently contributed an article on
"Environmental Integrity and Corporate Responsibility'for the
Journal of Business Ethics 5 (1986). He is the Director of

Equipax, an otganization/maruigement consulting service in


Farmington, Connecticut.

Journal of Business Ethics 7 (1988) 373-380.


1988 by Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Richard H. Guerrette

ing, bill-padding, product substitution, etc. among


these contractors were uncovered by media investigators and were brought to the attention of the
Pentagon in Washington. Several of these scandals
were intensively pursued by prime time investigative
reporting shows like Sixty-Minutes which served to
raise the national consciousness to a reformative
purpose. Upon exposing these fraudulent abuses of
unethical behavior by wealthy corporations, journalists demonstrated how the public trust has been
gravely violated by high level corporate executives
and managers. This demonstrative "showpiece" of
corporate conduct forced a remonstrative showdown
by government audit In the aftermath of federal
investigations, the PentJ^on has admonished the
industry to take charge of its corporate conscience.
In a letter to eighty-seven of the nation's leading
defense contractors, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
has prescribed a corporate process for voluntary
disclosures of contractor irregularities (Tafr, 1986).
In compliance to these admonitions, the Aerospace
Industry Association, which represents the largest
defense contractors in the country, has already in
place a compulsory policy requiring its members to
provide corporate ethical education in the management training programs of their respective corporations (Weisman, 1986:1,3).
One of die problems, however, that both the
Pentagon as well as the defense contractors will have
to face is that corporate ethical training will not
come by military command or hierarchical pronouncements. Not even the church or synagogue
can provide ethics by ecclesiastical or talmudical
fiats. Ethics do not happen by edicts. They are not
prescriptions of authorities imposed on subordinates.
Neither are they commodities that can be supplied
on demand. With competitive strategies for contract
procurements, some defense companies have speedily

374

Richard K Guerrette

adopted the demanded reguladons of tieir trade


associadon by programing ethics into management
training. In accordant consumer fashion, they have
acquired curricular packages in business ethics from
corporate vendors as an expedient tacdc toward
compliance, while conveniendy continuing business
as usuaL But ethics cannot be bought They are
learned and the learning is radically dependent upon
long term sodalizadon and moral development
process.' The need, therefore, is to ui^e corporadons
to design and implement sodalizadon programs that
promote the moral development of personnel. These
programs must engage the leadership of the company, especially at execudve levels in such a way as
to have its officers not only serve as sponsorial
advocates of ethical policy but more importandy act
as exemplary role models of ethical behavior. In
some companies, senior level execudves are frincdoning as factilty trainers linking managerial competencies with company values (See Posner et al,
1985). This kind of corporate sodalizadon is reflecdve of a pedagogy not altogether tmlike that in a
family or school organizadon, where parents and
significant others, as tte primary agents of socializadon, guide and culdvate the moral development of
their subjects. It is in this sense that corporate ethics
must begin in corporate headquarters.

Corporate ethics and sociological theory


For ethics to begin in any corporadon, it must first
be acknowledged that ethics are a way of life. On a
macro-sodological scale, they are really consdtuted
as behavior based on an ethos (Greek for custom,
character). As such, ethical behavior is derived from
culture whose value system is formulated according
to fundamental priorides that become plausible over
time from customarily repeated choices among
individuals and groups within the sodal structure.
Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman idendfy social
process of this kind as reality construcdon and
explain it in terms of plausibility structure dieory
(1967; see also Berger et al, 1973). They view the
ethos of a sodety as dependent upon the sodal
construcdon of reality among its members. Only the
values that come as customs from the commonly
repeated choices of these members, as they view

their priorides, are plausible in the sodal structures


of their pardcular culture.^ Thus, Americans and
other peoples of Western society view bribery as
sodally unacceptable behavior. They have consistendy and commonly condemned this behavior as
illegal and unethical. And so oflFering or accepdi^
bribes of any kind in business transacdons are
choices that are not recognized as plausible priorides
in the sodal structtires of Western ediical value
systems. This is the customary Western way of
looking at things. Bribery has no place in the social
construcdon of ethical reality in the West It is not
part of the Western ethos. Interestingly enough
though, in some Eastern sodedes, and notably in
Japan, bribery is not viewed as sodally unacceptable
behavior. It is qtiite commonly admitted among the
plausible priorides of sodal value choices, at least
in the day-to-day operadonal orders of business
pracdce.^ It is viewed as an associated benefit in
business transacdons and as an added bargaining
incendve for securing contracts. In these sodedes, it
has become a customary business way of looking at
things and as such is consistent with a business sodal
construcdon of ethical reality. It is part of a pardcular Eastern ethos.
Similarly, corporate ethics are a way of corporate
life a way of doing business. On a micro-sodological scale, they are consdtuted as behavior based
on a corporate ethos. As such, ethical behavior in
corporadons depends on the plausibility structtires
of values in the corporate culture. If therefore the
dominant values in a corporadon are ftmcdonal and
pragmadc and so ordered as to maximize profits at
any cost, it is likely that this fimcdonal view of
business reality among the execudves and managers
of that pardcular corporadon will so condidon thdr
choices in policy and strategy dedsion-making processes that corporate ethics per se will be implausible.
As a result, the problem of corporate ethics in the
business world today is a problem of identifying
these kinds of corporadons and helping them to deal
not simply widi ethical impropriety but more fundamentally with ethical implausibility. Execudves and
managers of these kinds of corporadons are not
accustomed to see business reality or to view management process in an ediical perspecdve. In this part
of the business sector, there is no corporate ethos for
a corporate ethic. The challenge, therefore, of corporate ethics is to reorder the value system of these

Corporate Ethical Consulting

corporadons in such a way as to change management's vray of looking at thbgs.

Corporate ethics and philosophical theory


Execudves and managers need to recognize funcdonalism and pragmatism for what they are worth
pracdcal business philosophies from which corporate
pohdes and strategies can be instmmentally dravm
for operadonal effidency. And this is a good, an
actual ethical value which can be reconciled with an
important ethical theory in business, the theory of
utilitarianism. This dieory teaches that ethical behavior is determined by whatever possesses intrinsic
value and is useful for the common good. If therefore operadonal effidency and maximum profit
are consonant with the common good, whatever is
fimcdonal and has suffident value in itself so as
to promote diis common good must be ediical
(Beauchamp, 1983: 22-23). The cridcal difference
between this business philosophy and the fimcdonal
business reality described above in terms of ethical
implausibility is that the pragmadc priorides of
those who do business without an ethical perspecdve
are chosen at any cost The pragmadc priorides of
those who do business with a utilitarian ethical
perspecdve are chosen not jtist because a given
company good is useful for profit but also because it
has value in itself and thus contributes to the common good. Priorides chosen at any cost are likely to
be made solely for the company good and ususally
without any advertence to the common good, let
alone to intrinsic values.
But these utilitarian goods are not the only goods
for priority business consideradons. There are higher
goods in running a business, goods that are interacdonal rather than fimcdonal and humanisdc rather
than pr^madc. These goods are more consistent
with anodier important theory in business ethics
called deontological theory. This dieory explains
ethical behavior as based on a respect for the nature
of being (Greek, ontos) and thus as duty bound, Le.,
behavior in response to this respea for being. In the
business order, this translates into doing things right
primarily because of what things are in themselves,
not for what or how they can be usefiiL This dieory
is a value theory, a humanisdc one which binds one
to consider the priorides of being, especially human

375

beings, in business decisions.* And so by applying


this theory to business pracdce, execudves and
managers could begin to see new business realides in
terms of personal/social interacdon rather than
utilitarian/operadonal fiincdon and in terms of
humanisdc values rather than pragmadc ends. Accordingly, there is much greater probability for the
compadbility of the company good with die common good. The reason for this is that the likelihood
of the conflict of interests between these two goods
is considerably diminished, with the btisiness mission focused on the dudes of corporate responsibility
as well as the rights of industrial producdon. The
cridcal difference here is that management wotild no
longer be laden with the struggle to reconcile the
company good widi the common good, and usually
at the expense of the latter. It would begin to understand its corporate responsibiUty as a duty to integrate these two goods to respect the sodal interacdonal dimensions of doing business. This business
philosophy demands a rationality for the existential
righmess of produa quahty as a company good and
a respect for the humanisdc propriety of customer
stirety as a common good. This deontological mandate for business pracdce is set by the philosophical
principles of radonahty and respect as defined by
Kenneth Goodpaster in terms of identifying business
goals as a self-directed component and customer
satisfacdon as the other-directed component (1983:
7). In apphed sodal psychological terms, this means
that a company has a right and indeed a duty to its
stockholders to serve itself with maximum profit in
fulfillment of its btisiness mission. But it also has a
duty to respect its ctistomers as well as the environment by paying attendon to their needs with interacdonal sensidvity through the entire commerdal
process of this mission from natural resource adaptadon to producdon, marketing, sales and service. This
kind of business perspecdve would begin to reset a
corporate ethos for a corporate ethic.
All this theory, however, is in the realm of philosophical ethics. The pracdcal quesdon is how to
change existing funcdonal pragmadc realides into
more interacdonal htmianisdc ones how to reset
the corporate ethos, how to reorder a company's
value system. In the pracdcal order, management
systems do not change overnight Neither do they
change by execudve order nor by regulatory prescripdon, even if issued by the Pentagon. Change,

376

Richard K Guerrette

especially ethical change, must come from widiia It


must be remembered that the challenge in resetdtig
the corporate ethos is to make the corporate structures plausible for ethics to take.

Resetting the corporate ethos a


management task
Rebtiilding plausibility structures for a corporate
ethos is a challei^e that only man^ement can
assume. Its task is one that requires a development
plan for designing management strategies for corporate ediics. The first and most important step of
this plan is to reformulate the corporate poUcy and
corporate strategy of the company. Every good
manager knows that corporate behavior is radically
dependent upon corporate poUcy and strategy,
which actually consdtute the structural foundadons
of the corporate consdence.* Corporate ethics in a
company will simply not hold if their value system is
not structured into company pohcy and strategy.
This step helps to render the priorides of this value
system plausible by resetting them into the pohty
structures of the company. The second step of this
plan is to engage all senior and junior level execudves in a collegial process of formulating a code
of ethics and a corporate value statement for the
company. The code of ethics should be drafted to
prescribe morally upright behavior on the part of
execudves, matugen and all personnel appropriate
to the occupadon or profession of the industry in
accordance with the prindples derived from the
appropriate ethical theories consonant vrith company values. The corporate value statement should
be formulated in such a way as to clarify the business
priorides of the company in accordance with its
redefined corporate mission. This step helps to
reorder the language symbolism of the company
philosophy as the official expression of its corporate
ethos and thus begitis to redefine an ethical reality
structure in terms of its value-system priorides. The
third step of this plan is to involve all managers,
upper, middle and supervisory alike, in a company
wide man^ement training program designed to
incorporate and integrate ethics into the continuing
professional educadon curriculimi. This step helps to
raise the ethical awareness level of managers in the
company and makes it possible for ethics to become

relevant and efficadous in managerial decisionmaking processes.* As such, this step contains the
added benefit of setting the plausibiHty structtires of
a management ethic and serves to open a consdousness amor^ managers toward a more humanisdc
direcdon and planning of human resources. The
fourth step of this plan is to present the reformulated
corporate policy and strategy of the company aloi^
with the code of ethics and the corporate value statement as the fundamental part of the company sodalizadon and corporate educadon programming for
new employees and the continuing professional or
occupadonal educadon of senior persoimel. This
step helps to disseminate the appropriate corporate
values through the entire corporadon even to die
hasic roots of the company infrastructure where the
corporate ethos needs to be implanted. The fifth step
of this plan is to design an instrument for corporate
ethical evaluadon to measure die external record of
the company's performance in the marketplace and
the internal arrangements of the company's behavior
in the workplace. This instrument should be applied
internally to determine to what extent worker,
management and even execudve atdtudes, commitment and performance reflect company pohcy and
strategy on ethics. This step helps to insure that
corporate ethical codes and value statements will
not become framed showpieces on the walls of
execudve offices in corporate headquarters but will
be authendc symbols of what they signify, namely,
that this company behaves according to what the
code prescribes and the statement claims. Implemendng such management strategies, as suggested in
these five steps of this development plan, wotild help
to eflfecdvely set a corporate ethos in a company and
would enable its directors to reliably expect a corporate ethic from its managers.
The need for such a development plan in rebiulding a company's corporate vdue system can hardly
be contested in view of the widespread dimetisions
of corporate misbehavior. The New York Times
reports that, just in die defense industry alone, fortyfour out of the top one hundred contractors are
under investigadon. It further disdoses the extensive
propordons of such misconduct by comparing the
voltime of Pentagon sancdons in the first half of
fiscal 1984 with die same time period of 1986. Tlie
report daims that in just two years the volume
increased more than double with 417 companies

Corporate Ethical Consulting

having been barred or suspended from contract


awards for violadons this year, while in 1984, the
ntimber was 178 (Halloran, 1986:4). The dimensiotis
of business comipdon have been further studied by
Amitai Etzioni (1985) who claims that sixty-two
percent of America's Fortune 500 corporadons have
been involved in various forms of illegal behavior
over the last ten years. While his survey targeted
conduct in areas of market and environmental irregularides as well as falsificadon of tax records and
patent infringements, etc., it also covered other categories of misconduct that clearly induded muldple
unethical violadons, such as, price-fixing and overcharging, domesdc and foreign bribes, andfiraudand
decepdon. These latter categories consdtuted the
largest volume of inddents comprising thirty-four
percent of all the violadons (1985: 45). The magnitude of this operadonal code of corporate misbehavior demonstrates the need for man^ement
accountability to business ethics and public morality
(Gellerman, 1986). It moreover establishes a culttiral
radonale' for corporate value-system reconstrucdon
as the only enduring soludon to the problem of
corporate misconduct The pubUc has a right to
expect nothing less from its corporate providers that
diey put their own houses in order throtigh long
range development plans designed to reestablish
a corporate ethos that good ethical choices may
become plausible throughout the corporate sector.
While Dean Gellerman attributes the failure of
management pracdce in bad ethical choices to
radonalizadon processes, he himself fails to treat
the management problem at its substandve organizadonal roots. He calls for "good ethics" as the
"foundadon of good business" but daims that "the
main deterrent to illegal or unethical behavior is
the perceived probability of detecdon" (1986: 90).
Accordingly, he su^ests a more stringent use of
external auditii^ services as a means to control
corporate misbehavior. It mtist be acknowledged,
however, from the moral development dieories of
educadonal psychology as well as from plausibihty
structure theory in sociology, as seen above, that
good ethics do not come from enforced control
mechanisms. They must be inculcated into a corporadon through the value system of a corporate
ethos. And it is only through a development plan
that includes corporate ethical educadon as a means
to foster self-modvating incendves in management

377

that a company can consistendy expect good ethical


choices from its execudves and managers. Such a
company wotild thus be well-advised to secure the
services of corporate ethical consuldng rather than
those of regulatory auditing.

Corporate ethical consulting


The work of reordering a company's corporate value
system through the implementadon of such a development plan is not an easy managerial task It really
is a mission in itself requiring some knowledge of
ethical theory and above all some insight into the
sodal organizadon psychology of management process. The most efFecdve and reconstrucdvely sdentific way to accomphsh this mission is to acquire the
services of a competent corporate ethical consultant
Overburdened execudves and managers simply do
not have the time to devote themselves to the intricate and involved task of a corporate ethical analysis
of company poUcy and strategy, let alone of assuming the tedious assignment of a reformulated rewrite.
Neither do they dways enjoy the convenience of
detachment for the cridcal unbiased evaluadon of
pohcy and strategy. The corporate ethical consultant
can be charged vnth this cridcal evaluadve analysis
and, with the objecdve insight of an outside observer,
open the plausibihty structures of poUcy reformuladon and strategy implementadon with appropriate
and pracdcal corporate ethical langiuge. He/she can,
for example, draw from the symbohc resources of
the company culture itself) such as, the company
history, logo or values (latent or expressed) and
appropriately redefine the business mission and/or
corporate goals in terms of this language. In this way,
the company can begin to frame an ediical reahty
inside the organizadon and so build an authendc
corporate ethos for its desired ethical image.* Again,
the overladened and attached execudve cannot be
expected to engage other senior and junior execudves in a process of formuladng a code of ethics
and a corporate value statement for the company
with suffident disinterest as to allow open and
free discussion of ethical issues and value priorides
cotifronting the business. The corporate ethical consultant can sensidvely set a collegial forum interacdonally condudve for this kind of discussion and,
through process consultadon methodology,' so

378

Richard H. Guerrette

engage all execudves to cridcally evaluate the company's internal and external corporate ethical performance record without personal intimidadon or
fear of career reprisals. It is only dirough this kind of
coUegial process that a company code of ethics can
be authendcally prescribed and promulgated and a
corporate value statement, consistendy expressed
and imposed. Accordingly, cridcal thought and
planning for change can be introduced and conflict
resoludon measures can be taken to deal with any
coalidons of resistance that may ensue. In such cases,
it is important for the consultant to draw out the
seeds of contendon over controversial ethical issues
that may be latent in the execudve offices or chambers of the boardroom, lest diey grow from residual
resentments of atdtude to hostile disrupdons of
management With regard to management training
and corporate educadon, few htmian resource execudves or corporate trainers are eager to assume the
commission of introdudng ethics into curricular
programmii^, notwithstanding the exemplary training efforts of the rare execudves mendoned above.
A knowledge of management sdence and even of
philosophical ediics is ordinarily not enough to
accomplish this part of the missiotL Straight ethical
training by direct curricular input is not usually the
pracdcal course to follow in most companies. Corporate educadon insdtutes or training divisiotis are
not seminaries or divinity schools. A percepdve
management consultant in corporate ethics would
know how to indirecdy weave value themes and
unobtrusively work ethical prindples into management training either through curricular planning
with corporate trainers themselves or by designing
and dehvering interdisdphnary courses, workshops,
seminan, etc. in management sdence and corporate
educs him/herself. Finally, human resource specialists know that any accurate evaluadon instniment
must be so prepared and administered as to induce
rehable responses from the evaluated and to produce
impardal conclusions for evaluators. Inside evaluators are not usually in a posidon to secure these
kinds of evaluadve results. An outside corporate
ethical consultant can perform this service with
much greater reliabihty and objecdvity, insurii^ that
all the company's efforts to rebuild a corporate value
system will pay off.

Summary and conclusion


That this kind of corporate ethical consuldbt^ does
have a payoff in rebuilding a company's corporate
value system is no longer to be contested in the
counterface of industry scandals and company demises. The sooner execudves and managers realize this,
the more credible will be their industry, the more
secure, their company. The Pentagon knows this as
well as the Aerospace Industry Assodadon. As the
pohcy resoludon of the assodadon demands, all defense contractors must provide corporate ethical
training in their companies. The development plan
for resetdt^ a corporate ethos and for rebuilding a
company's corporate value system suggested in tliis
ardcle goes beyond these demands. It traces valuesystem reconstrucdon back to the very corporate
roots of a company to its policy and strategy. It
emphasizes that it is within diis structural foundadon that the corporate ethos is implanted and the
corporate ethic engendered. It is so designed as to
disseminate this ethos and ethic throughout die
company by management training and corporate
educadon programs. Finally, its construcdon includes provisions for the evaluadon of the corporate
ethical performance of the company in the marketplace and its management ethical performance in the
workplace.
This plan represents an attempt to achieve a corporate ethic from within. It is a strategic plan to
establish this ethic on an ethos rather than on an
edict It is a lot^ term plan designed to dehver the
results of corporate ethical behavior, through corporate ethical consulting, not just for defense contractors anxiotis to heed government regtiladons but
for all contractors modvated by need for self-regtiladon. It is only through the development of such
management strategies outlined in the plan that the
pubhc and its insdtudonal government agendes or
industrial associadons can rehably expea corporate
ethics from any contractor or company.

Notes
' See, for example, the theories of Lawrence
(1981,1984) and their application to business ethics education
(Goodpaster, 1982 and Guerrette, 1986). While Goodpaster
contends that Kohlberg's stages are not always relevant to

Corporate Ethical Consulting


philosophical ethics and the tracks of normative ethical
development, he admits that these tracks are developmental
and thus conducive to the process of moral education. He
also acknowledges the fiuictional aspects of moral development education according to Kohlbei^'s stages in terms of a
pedagogy of ethical intervention (1982: 497498).
^ In philosophical ethics, a critically important distinction is
made between ethics and morality. Some philosophers
define the former as behavior based on prindples derived
from philosophical thought systems of good and eviL They
define the latter as behavior based on value systems derived
from the dominant priorities of a culture (see Beauchamp,
1983: 13). Sociologists defend the appropriation of the
morality definition to ethical behavior inasmuch as philosophical thought systems themselves are social constructs of
reality and, as such, are radically dependent on the acculmrated values and symbols of the society in which philosophers are accustomed to think
^ W. Michael Reisman, Professor of International Law at
the Yale Law School, distinguishes between "myth system
and operadonal code." According to Reisman, a myth system
reflects the traditional values of a sodety as promulgated in
offidal laws, even though these laws may, at times, not be
kepr, an operational code reflects the actual choices of a
sodety in accordance with the pracdcal morality level of its
people. With cridcal insight, Reisman demonstrates that
even in the West, and indeed in corporate America, bribery
is part and parcel of an operadonal code of doing business in
a variety of disguised symbolic forms and in accordance with
the pracdce of "selecdve toleradon' (1979:1536).
* This is the author's own interpretadon of Kandan deontological theory. It is reflecdve of a social psychology of
business ethics derived from George Herbert Mead's (1934)
role-taking theory. This theory undergirds the redprodty of
jusdce in business transacdons on the interacdonal sensidvity of business ^ents to the rights of one another, as
acknowledged in their respecdve facility to take the role of
the other. It is also reflecdve of an environmental philosophy
of corporate ethics derived from Martin Buber's (1956)
teaching on respect for being as applied to Immanuel Kant's
(1959) imperadve on respect for persons. (It goes without
saying, however, that in applying Buber to Kant in areas of
business transacdons, there is a hierarchy of order in the
values of being from human to inanimate which must be
taken into account See Beauchamp, 1983: 3738.)
^ For an organizadon/management study of the reladonship between corporate pohcy and strategy and the corporate
consdence and a sodal psychological analysis of the moral
development of the corporate conscience, see Guerrette
(1986).
' The irrelevancy and inefficacy of ethics in managerial
decision-making processes have been attributed by Saul
Gellerman to four commonly accepted radonalizadons

379

among managers that lead to corporate misconduct in many


companies (1986: 8590). According to Gellerman, these
radonalizadons are invoked to justify quesdonable conduct
and include: "believing that the acdvity is not 'really' illegal
or immoral; that it is in the individual's or the corporadon's
best interest; that it will never be found out; or that because
it helps the company the company will condone it" (85).
' See the May 25, 1987 issue of Time for the grounding of
this radonale in the public consdousness. The issue reflects
the growing concern in the nadon for rediscovery of its
sodo-culniral mores, confronting the systems of sodety,
pohdes and business to search "for its moral bearings" (cover
capdon; see also 'A Letter from the Publisher', Miller, 1987:

4
* This innovadve technique in corporate ethical consuldng
is based on contemporary human resource management
theory which contends that manners can shape an organizadonal reahty within their company through the strategic
planning of the company's own symbolic representadons
(See Berg, 1986).
' Process consultadon is a democratized style of consulting
pracdce in which the consultant engages the input of chents
in the consultadon process aflfording them an opportunity to
contribute to the redefinii^ and redesigning of thdr own
organizadonal realides (See Schein, 1969).

References
Beauchamp, Tom L: 1983, "Ethical Theory and Its Apphcadon to Business', Ethical Theory and Business, 2nd ed., Tom
L Beauchamp and Norman B. Bowie, eds. Prendce-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Berg, Per-Olof: 1986, 'Symbohc Management of Human
Resources', Human Resource Management 25(4), 557579.
Berger, Peter L and Luckman, Thomas: 1967, The Social
Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowl-

edge, Doubleday, New York.


Berger, Peter L, Berger, Brigitte and Kellner, Hansfried:
1973, The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness,

Random House, New York


Buber, Mardn: 1958, / and Thou, 2nd ed., trans., Ronald
Gregor Smith, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
Etzioni, Amitai: 1985, 'Widespread Conupdon', Business and
Society Review 55,45.

Gellerman, Saul W.: 1986, 'Why "Good" Managers Make


Bad Ethical Choices', Harvard Business Review (JulyAugust), 8590.
Goodpaster, Kenneth E.: 1982, 'Kohlbergian Theory: A Philosophical Counterinvitadon', Ethics 92, 491498.
Goodpaster, Kenneth E: 1983, 'The Concept of Corporate
Responsibihty',yottrrM/()/"B(tfnejjr/i(CJ 2,122.

380

Richard H. Guerrette

Guerrette, Richard VL 1986, 'Environmental Int^rity and


Corporate Responsibility', Journal of Business Ethics 5,
409-415.
Halloran, Richard: 1986, 'Making Arms Makers Do It Right',
The New York T/mei, June 15, F.
Kant, Immanuel: 1959, Foundations ofthe Metaphysics of Morals,
trans., Lewis White Beck, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.
Kohlberg, Lawrence: 1981, \984, Essays on Moral Development,
VoL I: The Philosophy of Moral Development, Vol. II: The
Psychology of Moral Development, Harper and Row, New
York.
Mead, George Herbert 1934, Mind, Self, and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Miller,RobertL: 1987, Time,May 25,VoL 129,No.21.
Posner, Barry Z., Kouzes, James M. and Schmidt, Warren H J
1985, 'Shared Values Make a Difference: An Empirical
Test of Corporate Culture', Human Resource Management
24(3), 293-309.

Reisman, W. Michael: 1979, Folded Lies: Bribery, Crusades, and


Reforms, iTie Free Press, New York.
Schein, Edgar H : 1969, Process Consultation, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, Mass.
Taft, William R IV: 1986, (Letter) and 'Department of
Defense Program for Voluntary Disclosures of Possible
Fraud by Defense Contractors', Defense Department,
38052, Washington, D.C.
Weisnian, Robert 1986, Tentagon Prod Sdrs Acdvity in
Ethics Codes', The Hartford Courant, August 10, D.

EQUIPAX Consulting Services,


The Summit,
277 Main Street, B-3,
Farmington, Connecticut 06032,
USA.

You might also like