Claus Dierksmeier

HUMAN DIGNITY AND BUSINESS

After a brief historical introduction, three interpretations of dignity in relation to management theory and business ethics are elaborated: Dignity as a general category, Human Dignity as Inherent and Universal, and Human Dignity as Earned and Contingent. Next, two literature reviews are presented under the headings of “Dignity and Business Research” and “Dignity and Business Ethics Research.” The latter discussion identifi es three subcategories of business ethics research involving human dignity: the role of dignity as a cornerstone for paradigmatic shifts, the role of dignity as the ‘ultima ratio’ for the protection of human rights, and the role of dignity in organizing business practices. The article concludes with summaries of the three articles chosen for this special section.

Toward a Humanistic Paradigm

This chapter tries to advance the present state of economic ethics by merging the insights of the teleological and liberal traditions into a “humanistic paradigm.” This paradigm is characterized by the foundational status of human dignity for all economic relationships. But is there a conceptual form of the notion of dignity that reconciles the unity and the diversity of humanity’s normative aspirations? As bedrock for intercultural dialogue and cooperation the principle of human dignity can serve us, if and when its specification is entrusted to participatory processes open to all concerned. This project is advanced by the fact that, over the centuries, a substantial ethical consensus across temporal and cultural divides has already been reached. From the cosmopolitan foundation of this “global ethic,” the outlines of a discipline of “humanistic management,” devoted to social, moral, and ecological sustainability, become visible. Last, but not least, business models of Social Entrepreneurship are studied as exemplars for the humanistic management model.

The Mechanistic Paradigm

This chapter presents management problems and traces them back to mistaken business theories based on a misguided “mechanistic paradigm” of economics. Mechanistic models, mimicking the methods of natural sciences, became popular in the realm of economic theory soon after the year 1800. Mechanistic economists attempted to break down all economic behavior into its smallest constituent parts such as the rational pursuit of self-interest of economic agents. Through this methodological filter, however, much of what constitutes everyday economic practices does not enter into economic theory. As a result, precisely those aspects of the human condition that enable individuals and institutions to advance the course of an ethical economy—personal freedom and responsibility—were eliminated from mechanistic economics. This led to the externalization of responsibility from the concept of economic freedom, much to the detriment of any and all interests in the social, moral, and ecological sustainability of business.

The Teleological Paradigm

This chapter makes the case that economics today can benefit from the long-standing tradition of ethical thought. A first major milestone of economic ethics was reached with the “teleological paradigm” that also dominated much of classical economics. From Aristotle via Thomas Aquinas, up to and including Adam Smith, there was a consensus that both economic theory and practice needed to be legitimated as well as limited by a certain overarching goal (Greek: telos) such as the “common good.” This chapter explores in particular how teleological thinking can orient economic decision-making quantitatively (against excess, as in the philosophy of Aristotle), qualitatively (in pursuit of justice, as in the ethics of Thomas Aquinas), and in regard to the question as to how ethical business strategies can be successfully developed (based on empathy/sympathy, as in the economics of Adam Smith).

The Liberal Paradigm

This chapter begins from the premise that we cannot go back behind the insights of the Enlightenment era. The plurality of convictions in the contemporary world determines—factually as well as normatively—the way we conceptualize ethics at present. No longer is there but one conception of “the good” for each and every one. People deserve the chance to make up their own minds about the values that guide their lives. With individual freedom as its base, the “Liberal Paradigm,” does not, however, exclude teleological orientation, as demonstrated by the ethics of Immanuel Kant. After a brief overview of Kant’s ethics, the explication of the liberal paradigm proceeds by establishing a distinction between quantitative and qualitative concepts of freedom. The application of these conceptions to current management conundrums—in the areas of corporate strategy and culture, leadership, and organizational governance—helps to separate the wheat from the chaff in the field of contemporary management theories.