Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“Speaking on Behalf of…”: Leadership Ethics and the Collective Nature of Moral Reflection

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this essay I discuss two limitations that emerge when considering Tsoukas (J Bus Ethics 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3979-y) analysis of the Academy of Management’s (AOM) initial response to the travel ban issued by President Trump in 2017. First, I suggest that any initial official response on the part of AOM would have required its leaders to “speak on behalf of” all AOM members and thus would have created a number of problems. We therefore need to take better account of others’ perspectives (“speaking with”) whenever speaking for others. For this reason I emphasize that moral imagination does not constitute a solely individual cognitive act but must be thought of as a deliberative process. Second, while Tsoukas’ analysis suggests that the leadership of AOM should have made an exception to the rule on taking public stands, I show that such exceptions need to be justified communicatively, especially when dealing with moral questions. My analysis outlines the formal and informal communication processes necessary to facilitate such justification and explores ways in which AOM’s current approach to deliberation can be improved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. The original policy was called “No Political Stands Policy” (NPSP). On 21st April 2017, this was renamed into “Policy on Taking Stands.”

  2. Surveys are not, strictly speaking, an example of deliberation, since deliberation requires an exchange of perspectives. The CMS survey was included here to show that a range of perspectives existed on the initial decision by AOM.

  3. A further aspect, which would require more in-depth reflection, is whether breaking the “No Political Stands Policy” would actually be covered by Derrida’s understanding of rule-breaking. As I understand it, Derrida (1992) emphasizes that a rule needs to be “broken” in order to account for contextual circumstances that may not be regulated by this very rule (i.e., because no rule can regulate the condition of its own application). In other words, rule-breaking is supposed to preserve “the spirit” that underlies the rule. The question, then, is: Would have rule-breaking allowed to preserve the spirit of the original “No Political Stands Policy”?

  4. I thank Reviewer #2 for a number of helpful suggestions on the limits of deliberative reasoning discussed throughout this section.

  5. The AOM Task Force on Taking Stands, which conducted a special review on how the revised “No Political Stands Policy” was supposed to be implemented, carried out a member survey to solicit input. The survey was made available to all AOM members. Overall, the Task Force received 300 responses. There was fairly high consensus on AOM taking a stand only when the issue directly affected the purpose, existence, and/or functioning of the organization. Although such surveys are a good way to gather member input, they do not replace a more deliberative approach in which opinions are directly exchanged.

  6. I thank Reviewer #3 for pointing out the role of power in the context of this case. It should be noted that neither Tsoukas’ reflections nor my own account are focused very much on the role of power.

References

  • Academy of Management (AOM). (2018a). Vision, mission, objectives, and values. Retrieved July 14, 2018, from https://aom.org/About-AOM/Vision,-Mission,-Objectives—Values.aspx.

  • Academy of Management (AOM). (2018b). AOM policy on taking stands. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from https://aom.org/About-AOM/Governance/AOM-Policy-on-Taking-Stands.aspx.

  • Academy of Management (AOM). (2019a). About AOM. Retrieved May 22, 2019, from http://aom.org/about/.

  • Academy of Management (AOM). (2019b). Code of ethics. Retrieved May 22, 2019, from http://aom.org/About-AOM/AOM-Code-of-Ethics.aspx.

  • Academy of Management (AOM). (2019c). Frequently asked questions on the AOM policy on taking stands. Retrieved May 21, 2019, from http://aom.org/FAQExecutiveOrder.aspx.

  • Alcoff, L. (1991). The problem of speaking for others. Cultural Critique,20, 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcoff, L. (2016). Feminism, speaking for others, and the role of the philosopher: An interview with Linda Martín Alcoff. Stance,9, 85–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowie, N. E. (1998). A Kantian theory of Capitalism. Business Ethics Quarterly,8, 37–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chia, R. (1995). From modern to postmodern organizational analysis. Organization Studies,16, 579–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1986). An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics,97(1), 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, M. (2018). Supreme court ignored international law in upholding Muslim Ban. Retrieved July 23, 2018, from https://consortiumnews.com/2018/07/06/supreme-court-ignored-international-law-in-upholding-muslim-ban/.

  • Coleman, S., & Moss, G. S. (2012). Under construction: The field of online deliberation research. Journal of Information Technology & Politics,9, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Critical Management Studies (CMS) Division. (2017). Critical management studies (CMS) division response to the US executive order on travel and immigration. Retrieved July 25, 2018, from http://cms.aom.org/wp-content/uploads/CMS-Division-Travel-Ban-report-survey.pdf.

  • Davies, T., & Gangadharan, S. P. (Eds.). (2009). Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., Anteby, M., Briscoe, F. S., Jennings, P. D., Karim, S., Kaul, A., … Zenger, T. R. (2019). Politics, governance, and leadership: What can we learn from the academy of management’s response to EO13769? Journal of Management Inquiry, 28(3), 283–290.

  • Delbridge, R., Suddaby, R., & Harley, B. (2016). Introducing JMSSays. Journal of Management Studies,53(2), 238–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deleuze, J. (1968/1994). Difference & repetition. London: Athlone.

  • Derrida, J. (1992). Force of Law—The “Mystical Foundation of Authority”. In D. Cornell, M. Rosenfeld, & D. G. Carlson (Eds.), Deconstruction and the possibility of justice (pp. 3–67). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (1997). The Villanova Roundtable. In J. D. Caputo (Ed.), Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A conversation with Jacques Derrida (pp. 1–30). New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, J. (2002). Negotiations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, J. (1997). The international dimension of U.S. refugee law. Berkeley Journal of International Law,15(1), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn, J. (2004). Communicative power in Habermas’s theory of democracy. European Journal of Political Theory,3(4), 433–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. Calhoun (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet,7(3), 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galston, W. A. (1998). Review: Democracy and disagreement. Ethics,108(3), 607–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, H., Lin, Y., & Ma, Y. (2016). Sex discrimination and female top managers: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics,138(4), 683–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement: The sense of reciprocity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A., & Thompson, F. (2004). Why deliberative democracy?. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1999). Introduction. Ratio Juris,12, 329–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D., & Gibbs, J. (2013). Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior,29(3), 1159–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargrave, T. J. (2009). Moral imagination, collective action, and the achievement of moral outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly,19(1), 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. M. (2009). Deliberative governance in the context of power. Policy and Society,28, 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, H. (2018). Trump’s Travel Ban is Already Hurting America’s Medical System, Huffington Post. Retrieved July 23, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-khan-travel-ban_us_5b437ccfe4b0c523e2613b9e?guccounter=1.

  • Kulick, D. (2015). The problem of speaking for others redux: Insistence on disclosure and the ethics of engagement. Knowledge Cultures,3(6), 14–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawlor, L., & Shotlz, J. (2016). Speaking out for others: Philosophy’s activity in Deleuze and Foucault (and Heidegger). In N. Morar, T. Nail, & D. W. Smith (Eds.), Between Deleuze and Foucault (pp. 139–159). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lugones, M. C., & Spelman, E. V. (1983). Have we got a theory for you! feminist theory, cultural imperialism and the demand for ‘The Woman’s Voice’. Women’s Studies International Forum,6, 573–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marino, L. (2005). Speaking for others. Macalester Journal of Philosophy,14(1), 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGahan, A. (2017). AOM’s President message on executive order on immigration and refugees. Retrieved July 25, 2018, from http://aom.org/About-AOM/Governance/AOM-President-s-Message-on-Executive-Order-on-Immigration—Refugees.aspx.

  • McGahan, A. M. (2018). 2017 Presidential address—freedom in scholarship: Lessons from Atlanta. Academy of Management Review,43(2), 173–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGahan, A. (2019). My presidency of the academy of management: Moral responsibility, leadership, governance, organizational change, and strategy. Journal of Management Inquiry (forthcoming).

  • McMurtrie, B. (2014). Taking political stands does not sit well with all scholarly groups. Retrieved June 14, 2019, from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Taking-Political-Stands-Does/144755.

  • Miller, L. G. (1956). Rules and exceptions. Ethics,66(4), 262–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowrasteh, A. (2016). Terrorism and immigration: A risk analysis (Policy Analysis). Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortmann, G. (2010). On drifting rules and standards. Scandinavian Journal of Management,26(2), 204–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortmann, G., & Salzman, H. (2002). Stumbling giants: The emptiness, fullness, and recursiveness of strategic management. Soziale Systeme,8(2), 205–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics,66(1), 71–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, M. (2003). Ethics, politics and organizing. Organization,10(2), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regis, E. (1980). What is ethical egoism? Ethics,91(1), 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryfe, D. M. (2005). Does deliberative democracy work? Annual Review of Political Science,8, 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies,50(2), 259–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schkade, D., Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2010). When deliberation produces extremism. Critical Review,22(2), 227–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setala, M. (2017). Connecting deliberative mini-publics to representative decision making. European Journal of Political Research,56(4), 846–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel, P., & Rubenstein, L. (2017). The academic case for repealing Trump’s refugee and travel ban. The Lancet,389(10070), 679–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovsky, D. (1997). Speaking as, speaking for and speaking with: The pitfalls and possibilities of men teaching feminism. Feminist Teacher,11(1), 10–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, D. L. (1999). Towards an integrative theory of business and society: A research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review,24, 506–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The White House. (2017). Executive order protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States (Issued 6 March 2017). Retrieved July 25, 2018, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states-2/.

  • Tsoukas, H. (2018). Leadership, the American Academy of Management, and President Trump’s travel ban: A case study in moral imagination. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3979-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (2009). The role of the moderator: Problems and possibilities for government-run online discussion forums. In T. Davies & S. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online deliberation: Design, research, and practice (pp. 233–242). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Editor-in-Chief, Michelle Greenwood, and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback and many helpful suggestions. Nany Urbanowicz (AOM’s Executive Director) answered some questions I had regarding Connect@AOM and a member survey that was carried out by the AOM Task Force on Taking Stands. Anita M. McGahan clarified some factual questions I had.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CBS Sustainability, Copenhagen Business School, Porcelænshaven 18A, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Andreas Rasche

  2. Stockholm School of Economics, Mistra Centre for Sustainable Markets (MISUM), Box 6501, 113 83, Stockholm, Sweden

    Andreas Rasche

Authors
  1. Andreas Rasche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Rasche.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rasche, A. “Speaking on Behalf of…”: Leadership Ethics and the Collective Nature of Moral Reflection. J Bus Ethics 163, 13–22 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04325-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04325-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation