Browse by:



Displaying: 61-73 of 73 documents


section i

61. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
George G. Brenkert

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
62. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
John Danley

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
63. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
R. Edward Freeman

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

section ii

64. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Norman E. Bowie

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
65. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Andrew C. Wicks

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

section iii

66. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Patricia H. Werhane

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
67. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Joanne B. Ciulla

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
68. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
LaRue Tone Hosmer

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Investigations of large scale industrial accidents generally take one of two alternative approaches to identifying the cause or causes of those destructive events. The first is legal analysis, which focuses on the mechanical failure or human error that immediately preceded the accident. The second is socio-technical reasoning, which centers on the complexities of the interlocking technological and organizational systems that brought about the accident. Both are retrospective, and provide little insight into the means of avoiding industrial accidents in the future. This article looks at six levels of managerial responsibility within a firm, and suggests specific changes at all levels that should logically help in the prevention or mitigation of these high impactllow probability events. The most basicneed, however, is for imagination, empathy, and courage at the most senior level of the firm.
69. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Deborah Vidaver-Cohen

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This essay responds to Patricia Werhane's 1994 Ruffin Lecture address, "Moral Imagination and the Search for Ethical Decision-making in Management," using institutional theory as an analytical framework to explore conditions that either inhibit or promote moral imagination in organizational problem-solving. Implications of the analysis for managing organizational change and for business ethics theory development are proposed.

section iv

70. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
David M. Messick

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this article, I want to draw attention to one strand ofthe complex web of processes that are involved when people group others, including themselves, into social categories. I will focus on the tendency to treat members of one's own group more favorably than nonmembers, a tendency that has been called ingroup favoritism. The structure of the article has three parts. First I will offer anevolutionary argument as to why ingroup favoritism, or something very much like it, is required by theories of the evolution of altruism. I will then review some of the basic social psychological research findings dealing with social categorization generally, and ingroup favoritism specifically. Finally, I will examine two problems in business ethics from the point of view of ingroup favoritism to suggest ways in which social psychological principles and findings may be mobilized to help solve problems of racial or gender discrimination in business contexts.
71. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Donna J. Wood

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
I am foregoing the discussant's critical role in favor of a short examination of how one sociologist's imagination is tantalized and irritated by some of the ideas and interconnections of Professor Messick's paper. The question is, when it comes to ingroups and outgroups, why does race matter? Why does sex or gender matter? I will briefly make four points about sociobiology, favoritism toward the ingroup, hostility toward the outgroup, and finally, the conflict theorist's favorite topic - resource allocation.
72. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Edwin M. Hartman

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

73. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1

view |  rights & permissions | cited by