Strengthening "Giving Voice to Values" in business schools by reconsidering the "invisible hand" metaphor

Painter-Morland, M. ORCID: 0000-0002-7846-7220 and Slegers, R., 2017. Strengthening "Giving Voice to Values" in business schools by reconsidering the "invisible hand" metaphor. Journal of Business Ethics. ISSN 0167-4544

[img]
Preview
Text
PubSub9102_Painter-Morland.pdf - Pre-print

Download (505kB) | Preview

Abstract

The main contention of this paper is that our ability to embed a consideration of values into business school curricula is hampered by certain normative parameters that our students have when entering the classroom. If we don't understand the processes of valuation that underpin our students' reasoning, our ethics teaching will inevitably miss its mark. In this paper, we analyze one of the most prevalent metaphors that underpin moral arguments about business, and reveal the beliefs and assumptions that underpin it. By revisiting the content of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor, we show that the moral content of the metaphor has been significantly misconstrued through its subsequent reception in economic theory. The "Giving Voice to Values" (GVV) pedagogy aims to enable students to act on their tacit values and address the rationalizations that they may encounter for not acting on these values (Gentile in Giving voice to values. How to speak your mind when you know what's right, Yale University Press, Yale, 2010a; Discussions about ethics in the accounting classroom: student assumptions and faculty paradigms, Darden Business Publishing, 2010b. http://store.darden.virginia.edu/Syllabus%20Copy/Discussions-about-Ethics-in-Accounting_S.pdf; Educating for values-driven leadership across the curriculum: giving voice to values, Business Expert Press, New York, 2013). We believe our analysis can strengthen the employment of GVV in three ways: (1) understanding tacit blockages to moral action, i.e., how students' belief in the moral efficacy of the invisible hand could undermine their own sense of moral duty; (2) addressing common rationalizations that may emerge from different assumptions about morally appropriate courses of action in the workplace; and (3) resolving values conflicts on how to act.

Item Type: Journal article
Publication Title: Journal of Business Ethics
Creators: Painter-Morland, M. and Slegers, R.
Publisher: Springer
Date: 6 April 2017
ISSN: 0167-4544
Identifiers:
NumberType
10.1007/s10551-017-3506-6DOI
3506Publisher Item Identifier
Divisions: Schools > Nottingham Business School
Depositing User: Linda Sullivan
Date Added: 20 Sep 2017 08:25
Last Modified: 20 Sep 2017 08:25
URI: http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/31622

Actions (login required)

Edit View Edit View

Views

Views per month over past year

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year