It may seem like an oxymoron, but faculty administrators at
even research universities can be hopelessly narrow-minded regarding knowledge
and how it is to be conveyed. For example, how often are faculty members encouraged
to give a lecture or two re-teaching material largely missed on exams (followed
by another, shorter examination on that material)? Do faculty administrators
work with faculty members in professional schools to see to it that the applied
courses are not severed from their basic (i.e., more theoretical substratum)
discipline? One of the secrets in the “sauce” at Yale’s professional schools
(e.g., Law, Divinity, etc.) is this salience of the respective basic
disciplines (e.g., political theory and theology, respectively). Synergy comes
gushing through once the false dichotomy is recognized. Before I went to Yale,
I was a masters and doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh, where the
dichotomy was alive and well in the university’s social reality; I had to “walk
back” the dichotomy myself as I discovered philosophy (and religious studies)
while I was still studying business.
Business ethics was one of my doctoral fields of study at
Pitt. The philosophy department there was at the time one of the best in the U.S.,
so used an elective to take my first course in the discipline. I began with two
intro courses; before I knew it, I was taking junior and senior courses, such
logic and philosophy of mind. The latter course turned out to be the most
intellectually intense course I took in my 18 years as a university student
(had I discovered philosophy in college, I would have three rather than five
degrees). It occurred to me at the time to start taking ethical theory courses,
as business ethics was one of my doctoral fields. Within philosophy, I
gravitated to practical philosophy—in particular, to ethics, political theory,
and philosophy of religion. I treated these as foundations for the field of
business, government, and society in business.
It dawned on me that none of the business doctoral students
concentrating in business ethics had taken an ethical theory course in
philosophy. That is to say, I was stunned to find a subfield of ethics reduced
to management. Ethics proper is a subfield of philosophy, not business; ergo, business
ethics is ultimately grounded in philosophy, with managerial implications. I
think business schools have put the cart before the horse and letting go of the
horse. A cart without a horse isn't going to go very far (though perhaps it can
go in circles).
From my educational experience, I contend that ethics
courses in business schools ought to emphasize ethical theory, with managerial
implications/applications used as much to illustrate the theories as to
understand the ethical dimension of business. Managers in the business world
have told me that business schools should do what corporate training cannot,
rather than being duplicative. I think deans miss this point, perhaps because
they are so oriented to sucking up to corporate managers in order to get corporate
donations. In my own thinking, theory enlivens rather than detracts from
praxis. I think business school faculties are in the grips of the false dichotomy.
Corporate managers would doubtless admit that they are ill-equipped to teach
ethical theory. Moreover, training is a better fit with what corporate folks do.
Business schools, or else philosophy departments, could offer regular as well
as continuing education courses in business ethics with ethical theory
readings, lectures, and discussions going beyond the superficial “rights,
utility, and justice” hackneyed reductionism of business ethics courses in
business schools.
