The headline and the lede sentence of Bloomberg’s coverage of the Duke cheating scandal make it clear that the chattering classes are reading this as an indictment of the much-touted ethics courses that proliferated in business schools following the business scandals of the turn of the century. “Duke Cheating Probe Shows Failure of Post-Enron Ethics Classes” Bloomberg’s headline shouts. “The cheating episode at Duke University may cause academics to conclude the post-Enron emphasis on teaching ethics in graduate business schools is a failure,” the lede declares.
But was any of this as surprising? These ethics courses have long struck us as misconceived. First, as we said earlier this morning, business students probably don’t pay very much mind to ethics professors who regard business as an inherently shady activity. Second, the goals of these ethics courses seem to be either impossible or undesirable. The impossible: sometimes it seems the ethics courses aim at changing the behavior of business students—and, given time, the broader business community—with pop platitudes cribbed from Kant, a project that imagines that human behavior is far more malleable to rhetoric than the evidence demonstrates. In a great article protesting the state of business education in the Chronicle of Higher Education last year, Kauffman Foundation president Carl Schramm wrote that “Presumably the goal is to prevent future Enron-like scandals, but how likely is it that human behavior can be changed for the better by tacking on a course on ethics?”
Schramm went on the describe the other more achievable but even less desirable goal of the ethics courses: convincing students to put politics over the business.
Another misguided trend is that of offering courses in the nebulous area of social responsibility. The implicit message of those courses is often that business goals should be subordinate to political goals. Business serves society by creating wealth — that is its true social responsibility. Business schools do their students and society a disservice by teaching that corporations should pledge primary allegiance to political ends, which could harm their ability to create the wealth upon which civil society depends.
So if the latest scandal at Duke helps us do away with the myth that the ethics course requirements for an MBA were going to ameliorate business corruption, fraud or reduce agency costs, we might all have those 34 cheaters to thank for peeling the scales from our eyes.
The Broken M.B.A. [Chronicle of Higher Education]
Posted by anonymous , May 01, 2007 12:04PM
Trying to teach MBA students ethics is like pissing into the wind. By their very nature, MBA programs teach students to be self-interested, maverick, self-starters, entrepreneurs. MBA students 'look out for number one.' Not that there's anything wrog with that. After all, Americans are highly self-absorbed and hyper-individualistic. With the decline in commonly-accepted values and a traditional culture, this problem is likely to worsen.
Posted by Duke alum , May 01, 2007 5:10PM
All I can say is that Duke has the absolute worst PR control of any decently-sized institution. This goes beyond the recent lax allegations -- for years, major news outlets have been scooping stories about problems with higher education right from under the noses of the administration in Durham. I can imagine many other top tier institutions suffer from nepotism, cheating, town/gown relations, athletic over-promotion, and perceived snootiness. For whatever reason, the NY rags just love a good Duke schmear, and the powers that be in NC haven't the first clue as to how to control it.
Posted by Professor Donna J. Wood , May 02, 2007 2:09PM
Ethics courses in B-schools are not a 'quick fix' for a lifetime of questionable training, cultural differences in how cooperation is viewed, and/or sociopathic behavior. Nor are they a palliative for entire curricula that are devoted to short-term profitability at any cost.
Ethics courses in B-schools are intended to teach students the language, the questions, and the methods of ethics so that they can complement their traditional business studies with a broader view of business-in-societies. These courses also help students learn how to recognize ethical situations so they don't stumble into trouble unknowingly. And, the courses teach students how organizations can be designed and managed so as to minimize ethical problems.
It is a sad and false old tale that ethics profs are "anti-business." In fact, most of us are enthusiastic capitalists who also happen to highly value human beings, communities, societies, and the earth. I know this because I know my colleagues from around the world: I've been president of three major business ethics professional associations.
Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow points out that the price system has many advantages, but it cannot regulate everything of value to people, and so a system of ethical values is needed, including honesty, trust, and justice. The great Nobel-prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has written that only a fool would do business in an economy without honesty and trust.
Business schools need MORE ethics, not less -- a stand-alone course to teach the core disciplinary knowledge, PLUS modules in every other course to show the specific applications to accounting, marketing, finance, human resources, and so on.
Even Milton Friedman wrote that business needs to be conducted within the bounds of law and ethical custom, without deception.
Posted by Professor Laquita C. Blockson , May 02, 2007 3:29PM
As a business ethics professor at another institution, I take issue with Schramm's and Carney's comments on what they call "nebulous" social responsibility courses and business ethics courses that highlight Kantian platitudes. First of all, the overwhelmingly majority of business ethics/corporate social responsibility courses -- if taught well by properly trained faculty -- incorporate far more than Greek philosophy. Just like the field of business overall, business ethics has its roots in economics, psychology, sociology, political science, law, theology AND philosophy. If one were to truly study how our American business values and ethics were formed, one would understand that it incorporates all these disciplines/elements.
Second, those who take our courses learn that balance is key. In other words, we provide our students with the tools and skills necessary to recognize and manage ethical dilemmas when they arise. We also teach our students that organizations -- even if they don't like it -- now understand that it is appropriate to balance the needs of multiple stakeholders (including stockholders). We business ethics scholars DO NOT necessarily teach students that political interests (or any other interests) trump economic ones. What we DO teach is that, given the dynamics of the role of business within society (and how society influences business), organizational leaders must be able to effectively balance these various interests: sociocultural, political, legal, economic, ecological, and technological (just to name a few).
If one were to study the history of business, one would understand that the public's expectation of business to be able to appropriately balance these interests is greater than ever before. Organizational leaders will attest that it is not easy to manage these various -- and sometimes diametrically opposing -- interests. That's where our ethics/social responsibility classes come in. We would do our business students a disservice if we did not guide them in how to meet these ever-increasing demands. Those business schools who do not stress this fact to their students (and faculty) also do their students, corporate recruiters, and university stakeholders a great disservice.
I agree with Professor Wood when she says that ethics courses are not purported to reform negative ethical behavior. We do not necessarily teach our students "right from wrong" -- this is a fallacy that most people who have not taken our courses tend to promote. We provide the MEANS in which students can decide for themselves how to respond to ethical challenges. The rest is up to them!
Posted by John Bunch, Ph.D. , May 03, 2007 8:50AM
It is interesting that Dealbreaker references Carl Shram of the Kauffman Foundation as an authority on ethics. Those of us who live in the Kansas City region know that Carl Schram and been a controversial figure since he was appointed to his post a number of years ago. Board members have resigned in protest of his leadership style and strategic choices. His controversial leadership led to the Missouri Attorney General reviewing the Kauffman Foundation for not staying true to the intent of Ewing Kauffman. The purpose of this review was stated as:
"In light of the public allegations of a departure from Mr. Kauffman's intent, lack of appropriate oversight by the Board of Directors, and certain instances of conflicts of interest. " (http://www.ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2004/kauffmanreport030404.htm#conclusion)
See also this editorial from the Kansas City Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2003/09/15/editorial1.html)
Ewing Kauffman was famous as an ethical leader. Carl Schramm is not.
Posted by david thomas , May 03, 2007 10:45AM
Are you serious professor when you state
"We provide the MEANS in which students can decide for themselves how to respond to ethical challenges. The rest is up to them!"
so basically you write a syllabus, put in some tests, lecture and pat students on the back as they leave your class and say, "Well,the rest is up to you" wow. now that's social responsibility.
prof david thomas
Posted by Richard Jurin , May 03, 2007 11:05AM
As long as we keep touting the neoclassical economic perspective as the only paradigm in which to do business and dismiss community, in which the business community operates, as merely a vehicle to move goods, we sound surprised that social responsibility takes a back seat.
If ethics is taught with a focus on community, also in which the business students are a part, students are challenged to think their own position in context with society as a whole.
While we are on teaching business students something useful for thinking about social responsibility, include some simple arithemetic on the role of the exponential function and its limitations on neoclasical economic myth of unlimited growth.