You miss the point. I don't care to silence you or anyone. If the issue is
important, and the issue of ethics that you raise is just that, then we
should talk about it openly. What bothers me is not the issue you're
raising, but the way you're doing it. I just want to know who we're talking
to, particularly when you respond defensively as you have below. Isn't
there even one John Hancock in your group? I'm sure that Charlie Wankel or
Jone Pearce or any number of other people, perhaps even some of the people
you mention, would be glad to put together a panel to discuss the issues.
But raising things anonymously like this, in my opinion, is not the way to
initiate such a discussion. If others within the Academy think differently,
then please speak up. I don't mean to be the only one responding to these
people.
-----Original Message-----
From: ethics atom [mailto:
ethicsataom1@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 2:32 PM
To: Larry Pate
Cc:
cognet@aom.pace.edu; Management Education and Development Discussion;
BETS-L@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU;
wankelc@optonline.net;
jlpearce@uci.edu
Subject: RE: [Cognet] Re: Resolution for Consideration at Academy of
Management Conference in Seattle
What is it you and the Academy of Management executive committe afraid of?
We sent out the resolution below for DISCUSSION and the executive committee
or the national office demanded that our ISP cancel our account in order to
silence us. Obviously we have hit a nerve. (And some of you wondered why
we feel a need to be anonymous?)
Nonetheless we have received indications of support (for the notion of a
discussion not necessarily the resolution) from Lee Robbins, Kim Boal, Ray
Horton, Mary Gentile, George Kalidonis, Peter Kolesar, Ian MacMillan, and
Srikumar Rao.
Since the Academy seems determined to silence us, we ask that you contact
others and get a discussion going. The executive committe tried to silence
discussion in Denver and they should not be allowed to do it again in
Seattle.
The issue is NOT guilt. The issue is are we doing enough to see to it
that we have no role in it continuing to happen. We often fail to point
out the ethical aspects of what we are teaching and more often do NOT bring
the full range of corporate social responsibility points into an examination
of EVERY issue. And whether we like it or not, ethics and CSR are involved
in nearly every issue. By being willing to compartmentalize these issues
off to a side we may be able to rationalize that our own guilt is minimal
but it is the very teaching that compartmentalization and rationalization
are ok that are significant contributors to the willingness of practitioners
to practice unethically. No one is saying business school professors caused
the problems. The question is what might we have done differently when
teaching the crooks. Maybe nothing. Maybe something. But we have to ask
and reflect and discuss. Not just dismiss. Not be silenced from discussing.
Larry Pate <
larry@pate.org> wrote:
Lame response. Either tell us who you are or stop using the Academy
list, even for issues like this that we all might agree with. I am
forwarding this to Jone with the request that someone within the Academy
find out who these people are. Thanks, Jone.
-----Original Message-----
From: ethics atom [mailto:
ethicsataom1@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 2:18 PM
To: Larry Pate
Cc:
cognet@aom.pace.edu;
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU;
BETS-L@LISTSERV.UIC.EDU Subject: RE: [Cognet] Re: Resolution for Consideration at Academy of
Management Conference in Seattle
We are a group of very concerned junior faculty at a half dozen
institutions. Our motive is to provoke some meaningful discussion about
what we teach, to whom, how and why. Given what happened to Lissack last
year, at the hands of the AoM Executive Committee, we dare not identify
ourselves (we need our jobs and have families to feed).
Larry Pate <
larry@pate.org> wrote: Who sent this? Why is there no
name on it? While I agree that we can all do more to emphasize high ethical
standards, I wonder about the ethics of the author when he/she won't even
tell us who he/she is.
Larry Pate
Redondo Beach, California
-----Original Message-----
From: ethics atom [mailto:
ethicsataom1@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 12:09 PM
To:
COGNET@aom.pace.edu Subject: [Cognet] Re: Resolution for Consideration at Academy of
Management Conference in Seattle
ethics atom <
ethicsataom1@yahoo.com> wrote: Be It Resolved by the
Academy of Management:
The continuing crisis of confidence in corporate America marked
by evidence of fraud and greed has been to some measure aided and abetted by
the climate of learning fostered at American business schools. As professors
of business we recognize that we
bear some responsibility for our contribution to the present
crisis. We are prepared to accept our share of blame, but more importantly
to amend our ways so as to hopefully prevent a recurrence of the present
mess.
Our teaching have allowed far too much emphasis on notions of
maximization, opportunity cost, present value, and the exploitation of
externalities. We have not placed enough focus on the societal effects
stemming from decisions made based on these techniques. Instead, we have
focused on how to use them and the history of their use. We have placed too
little of our attention toward the second and third order impacts of
decisions -- especially as they effect community, stakeholders, employees,
suppliers, customers, family, and the society as a whole. Instead we have
taught that such externalities can be exploited for profit.
We have spent too much time in the classroom teaching what can
be done in grey areas and too little on the consequences of acting in grey
areas. We have done far too little to teach business school students notions
of boundaries beyond which they should not cross -- in areas of ethics,
values, responsibility, and integrity. We have students read about "aberrant
behavior" but we spend too little time on the consequences of such behavior.
As professors of business we shall now strive to include
consequences as a focus of learning -- consequences to community,
stakeholders, employees, suppliers, customers, family, and the society as a
whole. We shall stop in every class and ask our students to discuss the
ethical dimensions of the decisions, tools, and strategies we are trying to
teach them. It is our job during the period of a business education to
confront our students with the potential consequences of their actions. This
is also true with regard to our executive education students.
To the extent that we have not done these things sufficiently
before we have been negligent to the public that we as professionals need to
acknowledge and redress. The changes described herein will not have
significant immediate effects, but will make strides towards affecting the
mindset of many executives in the years to come.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!