Broken When Entering

Broken When Entering: The Stigmatization of Goodness and Business Ethics Education
Author(s): ROBERT A. GIACALONE and MARK D. PROMISLO

Source: Academy of Management Learning & Education , March 2013, Vol. 12, No. 1
(March 2013), pp. 86-101
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23412394
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Academy of Management Learning & Education
This content downloaded from

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
® Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2013, Vol. 12, No. 1, 86-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0005
Broken When Entering:

The Stigmatization of Goodness
and Business Ethics Education
ROBERT A. GIACALONE
Temple University
MARK D. PROMISLO
Rider University
We propose that some of our students are socialized with destructive thinking toward
ethics and virtue that distorts their mind-sets long before they enter our classrooms.
Students are exposed to a plethora of language and thinking that espouses materialist
values and emphasizes power and winning at any cost. We delineate the "baggage" that
students may carry into our classrooms, including disparaging virtue and vilifying peo
who need help. Ultimately, this socialization leaves some students morally broken and
suspicious of those living ethical lives. We label this phenomenon the stigmatization of
goodness, a process in which moral people are condemned because they are seen as
threats to an organization's bottom line. We close with suggestions to confront this
problem in our classrooms, including the need to teach students the ethics of care, which
emphasizes the benefits of interconnection, caring, and shared interests.
"Take advantage of the ambiguity in the (Block & Vickers, 2002), have promoted ethical be
world. havior by focusing on the working conditions of
Look at something and think what else it employees. Practitioners have used a variety of
might be" (Roger von Oech). strategies (Weaver, Trevino, & Cochran, 1999), in
cluding ethics officers (Izraeli & BarNir, 1998), eth
Even the most cynical observer would likely agree ics codes (Winkler, 2011), and ethics training
that there has been tremendous progress toward (Thornton, 2009), to support ethical conduct in the
establishing more ethical decision making in busi workplace. In business ethics scholarship, along
ness. Indeed, the idea that business ethics is an with the traditional focus on moral philosophy and
oxymoron has found a proper burial in the annals stakeholder analysis (Freeman, 1984), factors such
of bad ideas. In its place, we are seeing vibrant as moral identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002), moral at
discussions and a growing focus on developing tentiveness (Reynolds, 2008), materialistic values
ethical cultures at a variety of different levels. (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2004), moral intensity
In organizational circles, a new breed of leaders,
(Jones, 1991), moral approbation (Jones & Ryan,
such as John Mackey, the founder and CEO of 1997), and ethics of care (Borgerson, 2007; Gilligan,
Whole Foods Market, have connected the profit 1982; Tronto, 1993) have helped us to understand
motive of capitalism with a broader social purposehow unethical behavior manifests in organiza
(Paumgarten, 2010). Nongovernmental organiza tional life.
tions, such as the Coalition of Immokalee Workers
Educators have seen a growing focus on charac
(CIW; Eastabrook, 2011) and Sub Ocean Safety ter and ethics instruction (Dalton & Crosby, 2011),
and an ongoing emphasis on business ethics edu
cation in particular (Swanson & Fisher, 2008, 2010),
The authors thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers
in terms of critique (Aspen Institute, 2001; Swan
for their insightful comments and suggestions. The first author
son, 2004), assessment (Swanson & Fisher, 2010),
wishes to acknowledge a grant supporting this research by the
MERI Institute of the Graduate Management Admissions and technique (Crane & Matten, 2004). Meanwhile,
Council. the current generation of students, already demon
86
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's
express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
2013 Giacalone and Promislo 87
strating sharp increases in volunteerism (Dote, caused (or will cause) various unethical transgres
Cramer, Dietz, & Grimm, 2006), and civic participa
sions in organizations. It is an assumption that is
tion (Levinson, 2010), have taken up the mantle of
slowly socialized into the minds of many people by
business ethics and developed student organiza the culture, is accepted by some, and sometimes is
tions focused on ethical behavior (Christensen, hiding in the corner of our classrooms. It is a set of
Peirce, Hartman, Hoffman, & Carrier, 2007), de attitudes and beliefs based on long-held, social
manded courses in sustainability (Cohen, 2011; ized ways of viewing ethical behavior, functioning
Witkin, 2011), and advocated an open, public com as "baggage" that some students carry into class.
mitment to workplace ethics (VanderMey, 2009). This baggage impedes the dissemination and ac
Despite these hopeful signs, there have also ceptance of ethics concepts and renders students
been indications of significant and troublesome ethically broken when entering our classrooms.
unethical decision making in organizational life. A We define ethical behavior in terms of the ethics
virtual revolving door of ethics scandals has un of care framework (Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1984).
dermined corporations across the globe, hurting Specifically, one's actions are ethical if they pro
people across a wide variety of stakeholder groups mote caring for the well-being of others and if they
(Freeman, 2010; Phillips, 2003). High-profile scan prevent undue harm to people (Held, 2006). This
dals at Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, and WorldCom in framework stresses that we live in an interdepen
the United States, and across the globe at Sumi dent world and that our priority should be on pos
tomo, Parmalat, Toyota, and Ahold, have left busi itive, caring relations with other people. Notably,
ness scholars (and the public) wondering why such ethics of care stands in opposition to general eth
unethical decisions continue to take place. ical rules characteristic of moral theories, such as
We argue that whether implicitly or explicitly, deontology (which stresses adherence to rules
much scholarship in business ethics assumes that based on duties to others; Bowie, 1999; Noddings,
all individuals wish to (or can be convinced to) 1984). It also provides a striking contrast with the
engage in and support ethical decisions and materialistic language, typically focused on self
decision makers. Unfortunately, this assumptiongain is and caring primarily about oneself, that tends
questionable. Research shows us that ethical be to dominate our culture (Kasser, 2002).
havior, whether framed within philosophy or other In the first part of this article, we introduce the
domains, such as positive psychology (Snyder & baggage certain students bring into our class
Lopez, 2001), is often undermined and is not neces rooms and show its origins. We then explain how
sarily a priority for some persons and this baggage leads to destructive attitudes toward
organizations. individuals of high moral character and virtue,
This notion has received some attention from a and finally, we suggest ways to confront this prob
variety of sources. Lutz's (1990) work on double lem in our classrooms.
speak (language that deliberately disguises and
distorts to make organizational decisions appear THE BROKEN FOUNDATION OF A
less unpleasant), along with research on impres MATERIALISTIC CULTURE
sion management (Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Rior
The ideologies and beliefs some learners bring
dan, 2002), suggests that organizational actors may
engage in unethical behavior and then use decep into the classroom are an aggregate of tumultuous
tion and manipulation to avoid the problems asso values informing their worldview. This aggregate
ciated with it. Payne and Giacalone (1990) and is founded in the dominant materialistic values
Tenbrunsel and Messick (2004) demonstrated that (Inglehart, 1997) responsible for a host of inter
this deception may or may not be intentional, butsonal
is and social problems (see Kasser, 2002, for
subject to cognitive biases that distort one's perfull review). As the dominant value in our econom
ception of events and situations. In combination ically focused culture, this materialistic ideology
with other research suggesting that some manag is indoctrinated into many students as children
ers use an amoral or immoral management style (see Chaplin & John, 2010; Durvasula & Lysonski,
(Carroll, 1987), the assumption that ethics are pri
2010; Inglehart, 1977, for a detailed explanation of
why materialism becomes a dominant ideology for
oritized and nourished in organizations may in fact
sometimes be false. Indeed, the spate of ethicssome people and not others). Parents are critical in
scandals in the past decade shows the validity modeling
of an ethic of care and preventing children
Carroll's findings. from developing such materialistic, self-centered
We propose that in our Western culture (partic values (Noddings, 2002). Those who ultimately ac
cept the materialistic ideology are taught to use
ularly in the U.S.) a far more nefarious assumption
toward ethics exists among some people that has insidious languages that undermine their world

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
88 Academy of Management Learning & Education March
views and compromise their ethical judgments. Along with the ubiquity of econophonic lan
These languages drive their thinking and what guage is a second language we label "potensi
they decide to filter, long before their management phonics." It, too, is a dominant language in the
instructors have uttered a single word in class. culture, but its emphasis is on power and suprem
acy. Research has shown that power, whether in its
possession or its reflection, has a transformative
The Two Languages of a Materialistic Worldview
effect on the thinking that influences moral consid
All of their lives, students have been exposed to erations and drives the orientation one uses in
two distinct ideologically driven languages that, moral choices (Lammers & Stapel, 2009). Usin
for some, serve as the filter for all we teach them. tensiphonic language, speakers reinforce a set
We label these languages "econophonics" and rules, norms, beliefs, attitudes and values embed
"potensiphonics." These languages emanate from ded in the status quo (Gramsci, 1971; Habermas,
the culture and socialize how some people see the 1975) to protect and defend their self-interests.
world and, as a result, how they interpret and Through such language, speakers assert that
respond to it. They are the languages of a materi power is appropriate and must be used, whether
alistic worldview (Koltko-Rivera, 2004). through intimidation (Jones & Pittman, 1982), dam
"Econophonic" language is a powerful, dominat aging competitiveness (Kohn, 1986), or even the use
ing language in which money is used to dictate of violent means to protect their personal, commu
and justify all actions, effectively drowning out the nity, or national self-interests.
language of morality, generational responsibility, This language is reflected in television program
and virtually every other language not framed ming steeped in partisan rabble-rousing, where
around fiscal concerns (see Schwartz, 2007). The potensiphonic language undermines balanced
result is a culture in which many things are dis discourse and thoughtful analysis. As one exam
cussed using financial language, even some ple, conservative commentator Coulter (2001) infa
thing as ostensibly disconnected from finances as mously suggested the United States invade Mus
love and marriage (Friedman, 2001; Petrecca, 2010). lim countries, kill their leaders, and convert their
This dominance of financial matters is reinforced citizens to Christianity. Students hear potensi
by the fact that economic measures such as the phonic language from religious leaders as well.
gross domestic product—frequently studiedPat in Robertson, the television evangelist and host
business schools—do not include activities such of The 700 Club, made comments against the State
as household and volunteer work (Eisler, 2007). The Department, suggesting that "Maybe we need a
implicit message is that work focused on caring very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to
does not "count" as much as work that generates shake things up" (CNN.com, 2003), again, suggest
revenue.
ing that a violent, aggressive approach should set
Even in the study of ethics,tlesome scholars
a difference in opinion. inad
To be clear, potensi
vertently encourage this econophonic phonic language language by barrier.
has no ideological
assessing whether virtuous activity has a positive Liberal Hollywood has shown a penchant for this
impact on the bottom line (see Menz, 2010; Wagner, kind of talk. For example, James Cameron, the
2010). In such studies, by asking whether ethical award-winning director, noted that he supports
behavior "pays," scholarship engenders and sup ecoterrorism (Svetkey, 2010).
ports an econophonic ethic that monetizes issues We also see these types of aggressive metaphors
of right and wrong. Students exposed to studies used in business parlance, such as when execu
focusing on the "payoff" of ethical actions learn to tives talk about "blowing the competition out of the
reframe the justification for ethics within the finan water." Organizations have been known to
cial considerations that business schools empha threaten dissatisfied customers who post critical
size. This leaves some to conclude that such ac comments about a company on a consumer web
tions are worthwhile only when they help site with a lawsuit for libel (Segal, 2011) and to
companies or individuals to be more profitable. silence organizational critics by aggressively post
ing lies about them on the Internet (Antilla, 2007).
This constant exposure to econophonic and po
[B]y asking whether ethical behavior tensiphonic language (and the associated thinking
that comes with it) often manages to "crowd out"
"pays," scholarship engenders and
(Kasser, 2002) a number of valid concerns in public
supports an econophonic ethic that and interpersonal discourse. The result is that
monetizes issues of right and wrong. some come to class thinking that money and power
outcomes are supreme and that ethics are hierar

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
2013 Giacalone and Piomislo 89
chically less THE BAGGAGE importan

THEY CARRY
discussion of materia
The First Set of Baggage:
But one important purpose of education is to
A Mind-Set That Disparages Virtue
leave students with broader perspectives, to see
beyond one-sided arguments and the limitations of In newspapers and television, we find that those
their socialized thinking. In doing so, we empower praised in our culture usually speak potensiphonic
them to recognize alternative ways of envisioning and econophonic languages, while others are gen
the world and implementing approaches that im erally ignored, or more disturbingly, denigrated.
What our students often witness in the media is no
prove humanity (see, e.g., Seymour, 2004). Without
such a vision, our graduates may be left with "icy less than the vilification of those who attempt to
hearts, and shrunken souls" (Leavitt, 1989: 39), ameliorate troubling social, environmental, and
organizational situations the culture faces (see,
whose view of their responsibilities is narrow (As
e.g., Ripley, 2005). Our students come from an en
pen Institute, 2001), morally myopic (Swanson &
vironment where those who are virtuous—having
Orlitzky, 2006), and therefore, leaves them less ca
the acquired dispositions that morally good hu
pable of understanding their role as citizens as
man beings exhibit in their behavior (Velasquez,
well as business people (Deloria & Wildcat, 2001).
2011: 128)—are often ridiculed and mockingly
One effective way to empower students with a
dubbed "bleeding hearts."
positive vision of the world is to teach them about When we look for synonyms for this term, we find
the ethics of care (Borgerson, 2007; Gilligan, 1982; a virtuous constellation of goodness: unselfish, be
Held, 2006). In this framework, the dominant pa nevolent, compassionate, humanitarian, and kind.
rameters of ethics change from possessions to peo However, within our culture, those individuals ex
ple and relationships. Here, concern moves toward hibiting a caring, helping heart are tagged with
the importance of interconnections, shifting from the derogative bleeding heart label, associated
economic matters toward foci in which human with less desirable attributes, such as being a
flourishing and meeting the needs of all are con
"pushover," "softie," or "gullible." The implication
sidered important goals (Eisler, 2007; Held, 2006).
is that only naive or stupid people would act vir
Caring can also help to instill trust among staketoward others because (as we will show
tuously
holders (Dobson & White, 1995), leading tolater)
an en those in need of help are often thought to be
lazy or
vironment in which firms can operate ethically and irresponsible (see Furnham, 2003). In one of
succeed in the marketplace (Liedtka, 1996;the authors' classes, a student opined that product
Reiter,
liability
1997). Ultimately, the ethics of care suggests thatverdicts result from "pushover" juries
bowing
caring about others (whether on an individual orto the "ignorance and carelessness" of
consumers.
organizational level) means that all of us will be
better cared for. This denigration of goodness is su
Unfortunately, because many students both enthe annals of human history, vi
ridiculed only by the most repre
ter and leave colleges with weak critical-thinking
mane. We heard such derision from
skills (Arum & Roksa, 2010), some find themselves
who remarked that gratitude "is a sickness suf
incapable of seeing beyond the dominant materi
fered by dogs" (Bazhanov, 1992). We heard it from
alistic mind-set that promotes possessions over
Adolph Hitler, who stated that "Humanitarianism
caring for others (Kasser, 2002). Coupled with the
is the expression of stupidity and cowardice"
fact that a countervailing ethics of care language
(Thinkexist.com, 2012). But we hear echoes of this
is not spoken with the same level of intensity in the
disdain of goodness (albeit in less explicit forms),
culture, students bring the kind of cultural bag
particularly among politicians and public figures,
gage that allows them to comfortably ignore much mocking those who push for virtuous behavior as
of what we say about ethics (see Kasser, Cohn, suffering from the irrational ruminations of a
Kanner, & Ryan, 2007; Myers, 2007). bleeding heart. Limbaugh (1994), for example,
Let us turn more specifically to the baggage that thinks that asking the most fortunate among us to
is being carried into our classrooms. As we will give something back to society is "nonsense." In
discuss, the first two types of baggage concern such cases, the positive emotions driving an ethics
messages that students often hear in our culture. of care are recast, making those who have a heart
Then, depending on their personal characteristics, appear misguided for allowing their feelings to
students may internalize those messages and ac drive their behaviors. It reconfigures a virtue into a
quire the third and most destructive set of bag weakness and creates ambiguity for those who
gage—stigmatizing others for their goodness. wish to embrace a caring lifestyle.

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
90 Academy οί Management Learning & Education March
But for those who believe in the ethics of care, A Willing Violation of Self-Reliance
emotions of empathy and sympathy are invaluable
Even in the econophonic-potensiphonic world, one
in an ethical decision-making process (see Held,
cannot simply dismiss well-meaning, well
2006). Indeed, Smith (1790) argued that these emointended moral actors for theii virtue, so the criti
tions are critical to a strong ethical foundation.
cism is typically done through clever doublespeak
Having a caring, giving heart is clearly distin (see Lutz, 1990) and impression management. For
guished from being a "bleeding heart" because example, it would be politically incorrect to attack
one's decisions are based in a reflective evalua
an individual's compassion in the face of human
tion of our connections and interdependences suffering. So as not to appear insensitive to suffer
(Held, 2006: 13; Kittay, 1999). Reinforcing the ethics ing, the attack is on the virtuous person's inability
of care in our classrooms can help to offset the to see that the person in need is unworthy, due to a
effects of disparaging virtue. lack of self-reliance, personal industriousness, and
self-motivation (see Furnham, 2003).
With this false assumption lingering in the cul
ture, those encumbered by a low level of empathy
The Second Set of Baggage:
(Konrath, O'Brien, & Hsing, 2011) and an inability to
Demonizing Those Needing Help
critically evaluate inaccurate attributions, con
What some come to believe is that the heavy clude that disregard for the needy is justified (Da
handed bleeding heart epithet is not simply an guerre, 2008; Dorey, 2010; Valbrun, 2011). They ig
aspersion of the virtuous person, but also of those nore that each day, poverty and ignorance embroil
in need. Some students learn that in many cases its victims in divergent pursuits to get through the
compassion is unwarranted because those in pov day. They listen to commentators tell them that the
erty purportedly lack either virtue or intelligence poor are impaired by their lack of education,
(see Petruno, 2010; Weise, 2010; Yassin, 2005), and though they rarely hear how the poor toil in mini
as a result, deserve our anger, not our caring. Whymum wage jobs just to survive (Ehrenreich, 2001),
is this? Some come into our classes carrying two and are left with too little time or money to get a
degree.
socialized beliefs about the needy: that they fail to
They repeatedly hear how those hurt by corpo
be self-reliant, and they are detestable for their rate actions are to blame for their situation and are
sloth (Furnham, 2003). On the other hand, people
told that such victims are actually the cause of
who are suffering from other afflictions (e.g., dis
other citizens' problems (Lubrano, 2010). Toyota in
eases) usually attract a great deal of caring from
famously tried to blame the victims of its sudden
others.
acceleration problem (see Doroshow, 2010), while
The process by which students blame the poor banks often refuse to reimburse fraudulent trans
for their condition likely reflects the fundamental actions, blaming the consumer for being careless
attribution error, a perceptual bias that describes (Moore & Anderson, 2011). A "politics of disgust"
people's tendency to overestimate internal factors (Hancock, 2004) is contrived to undermine the char
(while underestimating external factors), when acter of the needy by way of sound bites and crit
judging the behavior of others (Robbins & Judge,ically unreflective ideas, leaving some of our stu
2011). Thus, if students hear opinions that poor dents to believe it is unnecessary to help those
people are simply "lazy," it reinforces this bias in who cannot help themselves (see Ryan, 1976).
perception and leads to faulty conclusions. More
pointedly, such conclusions conflict with current
thinking about helping people rise out of poverty, A "politics of disgust" (Hancock, 2004) is
such as the strategy of microlending (Yunus, 2003), contrived to undermine the character of
in which the poor are viewed in a much more
the needy by way of sound bites and
empathetic light. In fact, Yunus (2003: 50) states
critically unreflective ideas, leaving
that "[pleople ... were poor not because they were
some of our students to believe it is
stupid or lazy. They worked all day long, doing
complex physical tasks. They were poor because unnecessary to help those who cannot
the financial institution in the country did not help help themselves (see Ryan, 1976).
them widen their economic base." Management
educators can teach this perspective, which recog
nizes that social forces, not individual foibles, of This is a long-standing problem that the litera
ten serve to perpetuate poverty. ture has documented. Research in the psychology

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
of poverty demonstrat
However, the characterizations they hear are
demonizedfraught
and blamed
with inconsistencies. First, the media
1975), treated hands our students
without
a hazy definition of what lazi em
to negative ness means. It implies that when people are not
characteristi
by those of higher socioeconomic status (William toiling for money, they are essentially lazy (Han
son, 1974). More disturbing, Guimond, Begin, and cock, 2004). Yet toiling does not seem to be the
Palmer (1989) showed that this blame is shaped by issue, for those who have inherited great wealth
attributions for poverty developed for television, without hard work are not reviled, largely because
particularly by sensational, dramatic, and nega society, in fact, reveres material wealth (see
tive stories about the poor (Carr & MacLachlan, Schwartz, 2007). For those saddled by this thinking,
1998). Such socialization disconnects us from oth laziness is only troubling if you have little money,
ers in ways that those who subscribe to an ethics ofbecause our society places such a high value on
care would find abhorrent (Borgerson, 2007; Gillifinancial outcomes (Kasser, 2002).
gan, 1995). Second, some of our students come to class with
Related to this mind-set is a belief that teaching socialized illusory thinking characterized by slo
others to be self-reliant requires us to not help gans and well-meaning platitudes scaffolded by
them so they can learn to help themselves. Al faulty logic and premises. They have heard, for
though this idea has merit in some circumstances, example, that there are opportunities in America
it is sometimes impractical or heartless. It is a for those who try. But they may not understand that
cruel and counterproductive idea to espouse find opportunity is an abstract concept that must be
ing your own food when an individual is suffering gauged against reality. As a case in point, one can
hunger pangs. Teaching someone to administer become rich by drilling for oil—if only one has the
first aid to themselves is cruel when they are hem capital to buy the equipment, possesses the knowl
orrhaging. Lecturing people that they need to learn edge, and has the drilling rights to do so. One
to swim is inhumane when they are drowning. And cannot, as the fictional Jed Clampett did in The
in many cases, the espoused self-reliance is unre Beverly Hillbillies, find crude oil using a shotgun
alistic. Caveat emptor is a worthy adage, but com in your backyard. Real opportunities are those in
plicated technology and financial instruments are which hard work can be aligned with the require
often beyond the capabilities of the layman. Even ments for success—the social, financial, and edu
self-reliant people find that they know neither cational capital that some people realistically
what to beware nor how to defend themselves do not have and cannot access. Expecting that
against organizations that capitalize on ignorance,individuals without such capital are going to suc
such as the banks that preyed on unwitting ceed home
is equivalent to believing that a shotgun and
owners during the recent U.S. financial crisis a few bloodhounds will create an oil tycoon. It is a
(Brooks & Simon, 2007; Sherter, 2010). The baggage seductive, but delusional, expectation that deters
some of our students carry, due to their inability to our students from doing those things that define a
critically evaluate information, contains patently caring society (Held, 2006).
unreasonable expectations for others that ulti Altogether, those who carry this baggage into
mately leads to vilification. It also creates "blind
class bring a broken system of thinking and values
ers" (Bazerman & Chugh, 2006) based on faulty that casts society's lower classes as lacking self
assumptions and beliefs that lead to poor decision reliance (Weinstein & Deutschberger, 1963). The
making (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 2006). socially created baggage creates a cynical ethos
in which the needy are recast as the architects of
their misfortunes, bringing disdain rather than
Detestation of the Slothful
concern for their plight (Furnham, 2003; Lubrano,
2010). And with so many people largely out of the
Many news reports promote ire against those who ethical calculus, the default materialistic mind-set
need help (Hancock, 2004; Lubrano, 2010). This iresolidifies itself in the minds of some who sit in our
classes. Employed in organizations that largely
manifests itself in name calling (French, 2011) and
reinforce econophonic and potensiphonic motiva
attacks on the personal beliefs of the needy (Mead,
2011). Certainly, such ire may be justified towardtions, they degrade virtue in favor of bottom-line
those who willfully avoid work. But when the need thinking.
for help is driven by poverty, our students hear Ultimately, when messages that disparage vir
from a media that often portrays the poor as lazy tue or demonize the victim are heard by students in
(Hancock, 2004; Lubrano, 2010) in addition to not the many facets of cultural life, whether they are
being self-reliant. internalized depends on an individual's character

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
istics and attributions (see Diener & Seligman, could interfere with achieving primary financial
2004; Kasser, 2002). Some students, due to personal
goals for a company, management, or work team
values and moral standards (Aquino & Reed, 2002), may be viewed as threatening. Indeed, some stu
succumb to these ideas. And once internalized, dents may be fond of people who spend their week
these messages saddle students with the third and
ends working on a Habitat for Humanity house, but
most pernicious set of baggage: the stigmatizationnot for virtuous behaviors that might compromise
of goodness. their financial, status, and power aspirations at
work. Research has shown support for our asser
tion. In a series of four studies of undergraduate
The Third Set of Baggage:
students, Monin, Sawyer, and Marquez (2008)
A Stigmatization of Goodness
showed that participants disliked so-called moral
rebels, individuals who stood on principle in ways
If you behave differently, you will be expelled
that threatened the positive self-image of those
from the tribe because you could infect others
engaged in less morally desirable activities. Stu
and destroy something was extremely diffi
dents who upheld higher moral standards ap
cult to organize in the first place.
peared to be rejected for their ethical behaviors
—Coelho (2005: 231)
and stances. Such rejection is often seen with
whistleblowers, both in business organizations
The pervasive bottom-line thinking leaves some of
and public organizations such as the military.
our students embracing a new moral reality, one
These moral rebels are often threatened, abused,
that is suspicious of those speaking and living a
and maligned for standing on principle (see Alford,
language of virtue. Indeed, what we advance here
2001; Angers, 1999).
is that they come to us believing that virtuous
Conceptually, the stigmatization of goodness
individuals are dangerous to material goals and
emanates from the same process that underlies
should be castigated. We label this phenomenon
society's long record of ostracizing and stigmatiz
the stigmatization of goodness.
ing individuals judged as "undesirable" (Goffman,
1963). Individuals become stigmatized because of
an interpersonal, intergroup, or intragroup belief
[T]hey [our students] come to us that stigmatizing others serves to achieve a spe
believing that virtuous individuals are cific goal (e.g.. Archer, 1985; Crocker et al., 1998;
dangerous to material goals and should Pfuhl & Henry, 1993; Stangor & Crandall, 2000).
be castigated. We label this phenomenon When goodness is stigmatized, the goal is to con
trol a person whose benevolence poses an instru
the stigmatization of goodness.
mental (to power, safety, health, or wealth) or sym
bolic (to beliefs, values, or ideology) threat
(Schaller, 1999) that creates anxiety for others in
In the stigmatization of goodness, individuals the organization. Thus, a stigma on goodness pro
marginalize the identity of an individual who has vides a means by which the group identifies these
high moral character (or other virtuous attributes) individuals as threats and mobilizes against them
within organizational contexts. While the idea that (Brewer & Brown, 1998), beginning with vigilance of
individuals can be stigmatized for positive behav their behavior and increasingly serious sanctions
iors or dispositions may be counterintuitive, re if the stigmatized person continues to emphasize
search has shown that stigmatization can occur as virtue over money, power, and status in organiza
a function of positive (e.g., extreme wealth) as well tional behaviors and decisions.
as negative characteristics (e.g., deformities; see Their concern is not entirely unfounded. Re
Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Frable, 1993). search has shown that those with people-oriented
In the stigmatization of goodness, the source of (as opposed to money-oriented) values (see Ingle
concern is not the person's virtue per se, but the hart, 1997; Ray & Anderson, 2000) or positive psy
danger it may pose to material concerns—the or chological tendencies (e.g., Snyder & Lopez, 2001)
ganization's bottom line or the careers of organi are less likely to place an emphasis on financial
zational members. Virtuousness is still perceived outcomes (Giacalone & Jurkiewicz, 2004), and are
as very valuable in nonwork environments (Heck more likely to emphasize transcendent and nonfi
ert & Heckert, 2004) because it does not impinge on nancial responsibilities (such as issues of ethics;
the organization or its members. So individuals Giacalone, Paul, & Jurkiewicz, 2005).
will not be stigmatized for giving to the United Thus, onlookers fear that virtuous individuals
Way, for example. However, holding ideals that would refuse to protect the interests of the com

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
pany (Froelich & Kottke, 1991) when doing so will cerns will result in α less motivated work group.
violate their personal moral standards. Similarly, This fear is grounded in the belief that the promise
onlookers fear that high standards of virtue may of material rewards, such as bonuses, is the best
hamper the ability to make difficult decisions and method for keeping employees motivated. They
apply organizational standards. For example, peo fear that eschewing such rewards will lead to less
ple may be "too caring" to make difficult decisionsprofitability, and ultimately undermine the finan
in the best interests of fellow employees, the work cial standing and upward mobility of everyone in
group, or company. Ultimately, stigmatizers fear the organization (see Kasser, 2002, for some exam
the group or organization will not operate effec ples). Thus, stigmatizing may be considered a way
tively, and its individual members may be both of maintaining one's fiduciary responsibility to the
personally and professionally damaged as a result stockholders.
(Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Lickel, 2000). Ta Fourth, virtuous employees are viewed as poten
ble 1 summarizes how various virtues may be per tially disloyal in placing their values and virtues
ceived as a threat to the individual, group, or ahead of the collective well-being of the company,
organization. the group, or close coworkers. If a conflict were to
Overall, the literature points to several types of exist between the needs of the organization and
threats that may cause the stigma of goodness. their own virtuous standards, employees might be
The first and greatest threat posed by these virtu tray the group and "snitch" on the violators. Stig
ous individuals is that they are perceived as less matizing such betrayal is common in law enforce
controllable by social forces in the organization. ment (Westmorland, 2005), among members of
They cannot be controlled through those mate organized crime (Mannion, 2005), among prisoners
rial rewards and punishments with which orga (e.g., Akerström, 1986), and with whistleblowers
nizations and their members are most familiar (e.g., Miceli & Near, 1992).
(Elliott, Ziegler, Altman, & Scott, 1982; Kurzban Finally, because
& people wish to justify the so
Leary, 2001). cial, economic, and political systems they live un
Second, their commitment to virtues over purely der (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999),
economic concerns creates the impression of a per coworkers and managers fear virtuous employees
sonal agenda that makes them unpredictable. For will undermine a system reliant on competition,
example, they may be more willing to act on moral financial goals, and power. By stigmatizing those
principles that do not align with managerial strat who oppose this system, coworkers and managers
egies and goals, and by using moral suasion, may effectively justify the organizational and personal
be more effective at influencing others to do so as status quo (Dovidio, Major, & Crocker, 2000). This
well. Similarly, they may argue for (or seek to al process is similar to a rationalization tactic termed
locate) resources for endeavors less focused on appeal to higher loyalties, which enables people to
achieving profits, power, and prestige. justify unethical behavior if they see it as neces
Third, managers and team members fear thesary sa to achieve a superordinate goal—for exam
lience of virtue over materialistic and power con ple, ensuring company profitability (Anand, Ash
TABLE 1
Virtues and the Threat They Pose
Value or virtue Threat posed to organization
Altruism May put others' interests ahead of the organization's interests

Benevolence May be perceived as incapable of making hard decisions that could negatively impact stakeholders
Compassion May reduce the likelihood of tough decisions when needed
Courage May stand against organization's actions and activities
Moral May be unwilling to do the "dirty work" that will result in profitability
Forgiving May be incapable of firing poor performers
Generous May undermine firm's financial situation
Gratitude May lack the motivation to want more or drive to "go to the next level;" may be indicative of
lacking ambition
Honesty May provide too much information that undermines organization's interests
Hopeful May not deal with reality
Humble May fail to put the company products and services in the most positive light
Patient May lack the desire to hustle
Socially responsible May lose focus on the financial aspects of the firm
Spiritual May be distracted by ethereal concerns

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
94 Academy ot Management Learning & Education March
forth, & Joshi, 2005). Particularly of both conscious for

and unconscious
those cognitive
whostrathave
accrued (or wish to accrue) valuable financial re egies (see Rosenfeld et al., 2002) that apply the
sources, status, and power in the current system
socialization students learned to the virtuous per
(Neuberg, Smith, & Asher, 2000), bolstering the sysson in question (Archer, 1985; Crocker et al., 1998;
tem through stigmatization effectively protects Pfuhl & Henry, 1993; Stangor & Crandall, 2000).
self-interests.
The complicated mechanisms by which individ
uals come to stigmatize virtue is beyond our scope
PLAYING THE CARDS WE ARE DEALT
here (see Heatherton, Kleck, Hebl, & Hull, 2000), but
a few conditions must be in place. It must be done
with sufficient evidence of the individual's virtue Life consists not in holding good cards, but in
playing those you hold well.
(as determined by what the person has said or
done); the clearer the evidence, the more it is in —Josh Billings
dicative of a dispositional tendency to engage in
benevolent actions deemed dangerous and hence, Fortunately, research has shown that the deleteri
ous socialization students receive does not neces
warrant stigmatization (Neuberg et al., 2000). Sim
ilarly, there must be clarity that the virtues in quessarily result in the acceptance of its damaging
tion may disrupt the flow of interpersonal interac values (see Chaplin & John, 2010; Durvasula & Ly
tions (e.g., people becoming argumentative over sonski, 2010; Inglehart, 1977), even among those
virtue-related decisions) or result in individual, raised in materialistic households (Howard, 2011).
group, or organizational financial or career perilGiven recent research in neuroplasticity (see Gaz
(see Jones, Farina, Hastorf, Markus, Miller, & zaniga, 2005; Salvador & Folger, 2009), we know
Scott, 1984). that our students' brains are malleable enough to
Nevertheless, openly arguing that virtue is a change. In fact, Gazzaniga (2005) concludes that
problem exposes the stigmatizer to potential ridi individual brain growth is connected to the devel
cule, derision, and humiliation in the public arena, opment of an ethic of care. This suggests that even
so clandestine or socially desirable means must be students who are relatively low in empathy have
used through impression management techniques the potential to grow into caring human beings.
(Rosenfeld et al., 2002) or espoused cognitive justi Indeed, some of the negative attributes ascribed to
fications (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004). These argu the current Millennial generation may be a func
ments must frame the stigma apart from virtue and tion of economic conditions and pressures (Leven
steep it clearly in violations that can be structuredson, 2010) rather than dispositional inclinations
and transmitted in econophonic and potensi (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010).
phonic terms. But teaching ethical decision making to those
For example, consider a worker who is con students who have accepted the materialistic val
cerned about the safety of his company's products ues our culture emphasizes may be difficult. In
and seeks to implement a full safety review before comparison, teaching accounting or finance is eas
additional units are shipped. His manager, mean ier because students want to know functional in
while, is completely opposed to this idea because formation that helps them get a job, increase
he is more concerned about the potential financial wealth, and gain status. The chances they will be
losses than any ethical issues. Although the man stigmatized for their competence in these areas are
ager thinks the worker's request is ludicrous, it is virtually nonexistent. But instilling ethics requires
unlikely he would say so—for fear of it beingstudents' re willing motivation to use what we pro
ceived poorly. As a result, the manager reframes vide, despite any previous indoctrination they re
his argument: The employee's perspective, while ceived. It requires our ability to overcome the bag
laudable, is undermining the company's fiduciary gage they bring with them. With a dominant
responsibility to its stockholders and making worldview
it of business as "dog eat dog," ethics
impossible to compete effectively in the instruction may fall on deaf ears, as the counsel,
marketplace. data, and approaches we provide may be dis
Critical to understanding the reframing is that missed as foolish ideas.
the stigmatization process is an active one—it isBecause we can neither rewrite their histories
not that societal values are manipulating passive nor change the culture we live in, our best strategy
individuals in the moment, but rather that students as educators is to determine how to play the hand
actively engage in attributional processes de we have been dealt. We may still lose to the bag
signed to cast virtuous individuals in a negative gage some carry, but ultimately, we must choose
light (see Jones et al., 1984). This is done by meansthe best way to teach within the constraints of our

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
students' past. We can do this by focusing on reflection of who they really are and how they are
three goals. behaving. We can provide them a mirror to reflect
First, teaching students critical-thinking skills istheir actual decision-making heuristics, the hierar
imperative (Paul & Elder, 2006; Thayer-Bacon, 2000)chy of what is truly important to them, and the
so that they can evaluate their decisions and the consequences of their choices (see Inglehart, 1997).
ideas they bring to ethical problems. In so doing, We need to teach them what choices are foremost
students are both more likely to critically evaluate in their minds and help them realize the implica
materialism and lack of caring and to carefully tion of what these choices say about them. In this
assess other potentially harmful ideas that they way, students enhance their ability to think criti
glean from the media and the culture at large. cally about ethics and the choices they make.
Second, faculty can use the power of those stu As part of this critical thinking, it is vital that
dents who do not carry the baggage we describe students understand that valuing goodness in oth
and do not engage in a stigmatization of goodness. ers or acting in ethical ways may ultimately risk a
After all, one of the great benefits of attending price, both for themselves and their organizations.
college is hearing other students' viewpoints and Both those who do not vilify, as well as those who
learning from them. These students can help ev are vilified, may pay for their standards. In the
eryone in the classroom critically evaluate ethical movie Highlander, Midori Koto notes, "Honor isn't
decisions. Further, they can serve as models for about making the right choices. It's about dealing
their peers by questioning the materialistic mind with consequences." In our classes, we provide
set emphasized in our culture (Newman, 2006). students with examples in which moral compunc
Finally, it is important for faculty to model caring tions come with costs, reminding them that they
for students (Buttner, 2004), even for those who rep will need to accept (or at least recognize) that if
resent ideas, values, and ethics that we personally they wish to live an ethical life, there is a potential
may find objectionable. We should strive to exem price for what they believe in. That is, sometimes
plify interactional justice, a way of behaving that we may lose money if we are unwilling to use
conveys respect, sensitivity, compassion, and dig unethical means to maximize profitability. Some
nity (Bies & Moag, 1986), and moves students to times we may be derided or punished by others
ward an ethics of care. Indeed, Boice (1996) has (such as coworkers or bosses) for our lofty morals.
shown that where pedagogical expressions of Sometimes, competitors will take advantage of our
warmth and approachability are lacking, there is moral code.
an associated level of classroom incivility as well. Recognizing these realities helps to inoculate
Faculty who serve as caring role models are, there students from the first set of baggage (disparaging
fore, a critical part of the process. Such ethical virtue). It makes salient to them that while higher
modeling applies to relationships that faculty order ideals may indeed impact financial con
have with students both in and outside of class. cerns, this is the price of integrity.
Below, we offer some specific strategies to deal
with the stigmatization of goodness. The first at
Exposing the Venerated Value
tempts to boost critical thinking among students,
the second leverages the power of the students As educators, we can help students recognize that
who do not carry the baggage of stigmatization, a materialistic approach to life can lead to many
and the last highlights the idea of ethical model undesirable outcomes. Research has consistently
ing. Collectively, these strategies aim to ensure shown a plethora of negative states of well-being
that students can identify not only the forces un associated with materialistic values (Diener &
derlying the stigmatization of goodness, but also Seligman, 2004; Kasser, 2002), including depression
its consequences to individuals, organizations, and anxiety (Kasser & Ryan, 1993), lower self
and society. actualization and vitality (Kasser & Ryan, 1996;
Sheldon & Kasser, 1998), increases in physical
symptoms, such as headaches (Kasser & Ryan,
Assessing Their Reflection:
1996), lower quality of day-to-day life experiences
Teaching the Price of Integrity
(Kasser & Ryan, 1996), and lower life satisfaction
It is interesting that few students would openly (Sheldon & Kasser, 2001).
advocate against ethics. Indeed, most would likely It is not the desire for money, power, and status
claim they were ethical in their dealings and itself that seems to cause problems, but rather
would recoil at any accusation of moral hypocrisy when the desire for these things is an end goal in
(Batson, Kobrynowicz, Dinnerstein, Kampf, & Wil itself (Richins, 1994; Srivastava, Locke, & Bartol,
son, 1997). But students should learn an accurate 2001). Using self-assessments through instruments

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
such as Rokeach's (1973) Value Survey, students choosing others over oneself, but is instead acting
can begin to ponder their own value systems and for the good of us all (Held, 2006).
recognize that attaining material possessions
may not help them reach some high order goals (in
fact, it can inhibit them). In class discussions, stu In an interconnected world, immoral
dents who are focused on materialistic goals can
hear from classmates who hold much different val
actions eventually sully us all, either
directly or indirectly.
ues, such as caring and empathy. Moreover, the
benefits of caring (for oneself and society) are
made more apparent when their peers speak about
their life experiences, such as volunteering to help Thus, the caring person is not only a model of
poor people. selflessness, but also a model of self-interest, for if
In the end, exposure to the true impact of mate goodness decreases, so does the likelihood that
rialistic strivings opens up the possibility that stu any of us will be helped in the future. Because we
dents will not succumb to the second set of bag are deeply interdependent on other people (Kittay,
gage (demonizing those needing help). Instead of 1999), there are times when only the kindness of
casting aspersions on people whose values do not others can help us. An accident requires first aid,
match those of the cultural milieu, students come usually from a volunteer ambulance or passerby. A
to see that it is the culture itself that may be the heart attack victim needs CPR, often from a
source of the problems. They come to recognize the stranger. Even the United States government, a
latent connections between dysfunctional cultural bastion of political power and incredible military
values, their thinking, and the biased perceptions might, has exhorted citizens to be vigilant in the
they have of others (Furnham, 2003). Business pro fight on terrorism. In the recent recession, many
grams can help in this regard by requiring courses powerful and wealthy companies, including banks
that explore people-related concerns (e.g., organi and auto manufacturers, survived because of bail
zational behavior, ethics, corporate social respon out funds from the United States government. No
sibility) as part of the core curriculum. If we do not tably, some large firms that did not receive bailout
make these required classes, the unfortunate money collapsed entirely (e.g., Lehman Brothers).
likely consequence is that students who need the Indeed, even the mightiest are often but a step
courses most will not enroll (Bell, Connerley, & away from needing a helping hand.
Cocchiara, 2009). As students consider an employee who goes out
of her way to catch a defective product that might
kill someone, a whistleblower who reports a
Teaching Interconnection and
Realistic Self-Interest wrongdoing that might undermine others' finan
cial futures, and an employee who courageously
Faculty can help students consider whether a com stands up against his company's environmental
petitive, materialistic worldview can actually woik abuses, they begin to understand that they may be
against students' self-interest. We can teach stu the person aided by the ethical employee. These
dents that an exclusive focus on finances and sta caring actions may save theii lives, their financial
tus over caring and goodness ultimately under futures, and theii environment. Thus students see
mines their well-being. Certainly, if we expect that individuals who live by an ethics of care are
them to let go of the third set of baggage (stigma impactful on a human level. By teaching and mod
tization of goodness), it will be done by showing eling this interconnection to others, students are
them how such actions can become personally rel more likely to embrace virtue rather than vilify it.
evant, harming them and those they care about.
In fact, when self-interest is practiced at the ex CONCLUSION
pense of other people, many of the resultant uneth
ical activities cannot be fenced out of our lives. Ultimately, our goal is to teach students not only to
There are no modern-day moats to separate us learn better ethical decision making, not only t
from pollution, disease, or crime. In an intercon avoid the stigmatization of goodness, but also to
nected world, immoral actions eventually sully us live a virtuous life and build a virtuous world. Our
all, either directly or indirectly. After all, corpora goal is to teach them assent to a business model in
tions that pollute the environment end up poison which integrity is not trumped by the pursuit of
ing all of our air. Thus, students should learn that profitability. Our goal is to brandish challenging
stigmatizing goodness ultimately undermines the ideas and approaches that elevate the well-being
quality of everyone's life. Caring is not about of all, rather than the finances and careers of a

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
few. Bowie, Ν. Ε. 1999.

Within theBusiness ethics: A kantian
curre perspective. Mai
den, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
be met until we recogn
iments to their enactment. Brewer, Μ. B., & Brown, R. J. 1998. Intergroup relations. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of
social psychology, vol. 1-2 (4th ed.): 554-594. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
REFERENCES Brooks, R., & Simon, R. 2007. Subprime debacle traps even very
credit-worthy. The Wall Street Journal, December 3: Al.
Äkerström, Μ. 1986. Outcasts in prison: The cases of informers
and sex offenders. Deviant Behavior, 7: 1-12. Buttner, Ε. H. 2004. How do we "dis" students?: A model of
Alford, C. F. 2001. Whistleblowers: Broken lives and organiza (dis)respectiul business instructor behavior. Journal of
tional power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Management Education, 28: 647-673.
Anand, V., Ashforth, Β. E., & Joshi, M. 2005. Business as usual: Carr, S. C., & MacLachlan, M. 1998. Actors, observers and attri
The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organi butions for Third World poverty: Contrasting perspectives
zations. Academy of Management Executive, 19: 9-23. from Malawi and Australia. Journal of Social Psychology,
138: 189-203.
Angers, T. 1999. The forgotten hero of my Lai: The hugh Thomp
son story. Lafayette, LA: Acadian House. Carroll, A. B. 1987. In search of the moral manager. Business
Horizons, 30: 7-15.
Antilla, S. 2007. Overstock blames with creepy strategy. Bloom
burg News, February 21. Chaplin, L., & John, D. 2010. Interpersonal influences on adoles
cent materialism: A new look at the role of parents and
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. 2002. The self-importance of moral iden
peers. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20: 176-184.
tity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 1423—
1440. Christensen, L. J., Peirce, E., Hartman, L. P., Hoffman, W. M., &
Carrier, J. 2007. Ethics, CSR, and sustainability education in
Archer, C. 1985. Social deviance. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson
the Financial Times top 50 global business schools: Base
(Eds.), Handbook oi social psychology, vol. 2, (3rd ed.): 743
804. New York: Random House.
line data and future research directions. Journal oi Business
Ethics. 73: 347-368, 2003.
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. 2010. Academically adrift: Limited learning
on college campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago CNN.com.
Press. 2003. Pat Robertson's 'nuke' idea draws protest, http://
edition.cnn.com/2003/US/l 0/09/robertson.state. Accessed
Aspen Institute. 2001. Where will they lead? In MBA student
December 20, 2010.
attitudes about business and society. New York: Aspen In
stitute for Social Innovation Through Business. Coelho, P. 2005. The Zahir. New York: HarperCollins.
Batson, C. D., Kobrynowicz, D., Dinnerstein, J. L„ Kampf, Cohen,

Η. C., S.
& 2011. All effective management must be sustainability
management. Huiiington Post.com, June 27. http://www.
Wilson, A. D. 1997. In a very different voice: Unmasking
huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/all-effective-management_
moral hypocrisy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol
ogy. 72: 1335-1348. b_885008.html. Accessed August 20, 2011.
Coulter, A. 2001. This is war. Human Events, 57: 8.
Bazerman, Μ. H., & Chugh, D. 2006. Decisions without blinders.
Harvard Business Review, 84: 88-97.
Crane, Α., & Matten, D. 2004. Questioning the domain of the
Bazhanov, B. 1992. The memoirs of Stalin's former secretary. business ethics curriculum. Journal oi Business Ethics, 54:
http://www.panrus.com/books/details.php71angID 357-369.
= l&bookID=5905, http://en.wikiqu0te.0rg/wiki/J0seph_Stalin#
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. 1998. Social stigma. In D. T.
Unsourced, and http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/BAZHANOW/stalin.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske and G. Lindzey, J. M. Henderson, J.
txt.
Mayes, & R. Hermann (Eds.), The handbook of social psy
Bell, M. P., Connerley, M. L., & Cocchiara, F. K. 2009. The case for chology, vol. 2: 504-553. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
mandatory diversity education. Academy of Management
Daguerre, A. 2008. The second phase of US welfare reform,
Learning and Education, 8: 597-609.
2000-2006: Blaming the poor again? Social Policy and Ad
Bies, R., & Moag, J. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication ministration, 42: 362-378.
criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki, B. Sheppard & M. Bazer
man (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations: 43 Dalton, J. C., & Crosby, P. C. 2011. Core values and commitments
55. Greenwich, CT: JAI. in college: The surprising return to ethics and character in
undergraduate education. Journal oi College and Charac
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Lickel, B. 2000. ter. 12: 2-4.
Stigma, threat, and social interactions. In T. F. Heatherton,
R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychol Deloria, V., & Wildcat, D. 2001. Power and place: Indian educa
tion in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.
ogy of stigma: 307-333. New York: Guilford Press.
Block, M., & Vickers, S. 2002. Nicaraguans risk death diving for Diener, Ε., & Seligman, Μ. Ε. P. 2004. Beyond money: Toward an
vanishing lobsters. National Geographic Today, October 1. economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 5: 1-31.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1001_
021001_lobsterdivers.html. Accessed January 5, 2011. Dobson, J., & White, J. 1995. Toward the feminine firm: An ex
Boice, B. 1996. Classroom incivilities. Research in Higher Edu tension to Thomas White. Business Ethics Quarterly. 5: 463
cation, 37: 453-486. 478.
Borgerson, J. L. 2007. On the harmony of business ethics Dorey,

and P. 2010. A poverty of imagination: Blaming the poor for
feminist ethics. Business and Society Review, 112: 477-509.inequality. Political Quarterly, 81: 333-343.

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
Doroshow, J. 2010. Toyota finally

Goffman, gets
Ε. 1963. Stigma:
around Notes onto
the management
blaming of spoiled
the
victim. In The Huffington post.identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
http://www.huffingtonpost.
com/joanne-doroshow/toyota-f inally-gets-aroun_b_500621.
Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks of Anto
html.
nio Gramsci. In Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith (Eds. & Trans.). New
Dote, L., Cramer, K., Dietz, N., & Grimm R, Jr. 2006. Students York: International Publishers.
helping America. Corporation for national and community
Guimond, S., Begin, G., & Palmer, D. L. 1989. Education and
service, http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/role_impact/
causal attributions—The development of person-blame
performance_research.asp#COLLEGE. Accessed August 22,
2012
and system-blame ideology. Social Psychology Quarterly,
52: 126-140.
Dovidio, J. F., Major, B. Ft., & Crocker, J. 2000. Stigma: Introduction
and overview. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl &
Habermas, J. 1975. Legitimation crisis, T. McCarthy, (Trans.).
Boston: Beacon Press.
J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma: 1-28. New
York: Guilford Publications. Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L„ & Raiffa, H. 2006. The hidden trap
in decision making. Harvard Business Review, 84: 118-126.
Durvasula, S., & Lysonski, S. 2010. Money, money, money—How
do attitudes toward money impact vanity and materialism? Hancock, A. M. 2004. The politics of disgust and the public
Journal of Consumer Marketing. 27: 169-179. identity of the "welfare queen". New York: New York Uni
Eastabrook, B. 2011. Tomatoland. Kansas City, MO: Andrews versity Publishing Group.
and McMeel. Heatherton, T. F., Kleck, R. E„ Hebl, M. R„ & Hull, J. G„ (Eds.).
2000.
Ehrenreich, Β. 2001. Nickel and dimed: On (not) getting by in The social psychology of stigma. New York: Guilford
Publications.
America. New York: Metropolitan.
Heckert, Α., & Heckert, D. M. 2004. Using an integrated typology
Eisler, R. 2007. The real wealth of nations: Creating a caring
economics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. of deviance to analyze ten common norms of the US middle
class. Sociological Quarterly. 45: 209-228.
Elliott, G. C„ Ziegler, H. L., Altman, B. M„ & Scott, D. R. 1982.
Understanding stigma: Dimensions of deviance andHeld, cop V. 2006. The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global
ing. Deviant Behavior, 3: 275-300. New York: Oxford University Press.
Feagin, J. R. 1975. Subordinating the poor: Welfare andHershatter, Ameri Α., & Epstein, M. 2010. Millennials and the world of
can beliefs. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. work: An organization and management perspective. Jour
nal of Business and Psychology. 25: 211-223.
Frable, D. E. 1993. Dimensions of marginality: Distinctions
among those who are different. Personality and Social Psy Howard, A. 2011. Privileged pursuits of social justice: Exploring
chology Bulletin, 19: 370-380. privileged college students' motivation for engaging in so
cial justice. Journal of College and Character, 12: 1-14.
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder ap
proach. Boston: Pitman. Inglehart, R. 1977. The silent revolution: Changing values and
political styles among western publics. Princeton, NJ:
Freeman, R. E. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. New
Princeton University Press.
York: Cambridge University Press.
Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization: Cul
French, D. 2011. Our depraved poor, http://www.patheos.com/
blogs/frenchrevolution/2011/08/22/our-depraved-poor. Ac tural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Prince
cessed September 1, 2011. ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Friedman, R. 2001. Tom Cruise divorce move could cost Nicole Izraeli, D., & BarNir, A. 1998. Promoting ethics through ethics
plenty. Foxnews.com. March 8. http://www.foxnews.com/ officers: A proposed profile and an application. Journal of
Business Ethics, 17: 1189-1196.
story/0,2933,976,OO.html.
Jones, Ε. E., Farina, Α., Hastorf, A. H„ Markus, Η., Miller, D. Τ., &
Froelich, K. S., & Kottke, J. L. 1991. Measuring individual beliefs
about organizational ethics. Educational Psychological Scott, R. Α. 1984. Social stigma: The psychology of marked
Measurement, 51: 377-383. relationships. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Jones, Ε. E., & Pittman, T. S. 1982. Toward a general theory of
Furnham, A. 2003. Poverty and wealth. In S. Carr & T. Sloan
strategic self-presentation. In J. Suis (Ed.), Psychological
(Eds.), Psychology and poverty: 163-183. Dordrecht, Nether
lands: Kluwer. perspectives on the self: 231-262. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jones, Τ. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in
Gazzaniga, M. S. 2005. The ethical brain. New York: Dana Press.
organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of
Giacalone, R. Α., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. 2004. The interaction of
Management Review, 16: 366-395.
materialist and postmaterialist values in predicting dimen
sions of personal and social identity. Human Relations. 57:Jones, Τ. M., & Ryan, L. V. 1997. The link between ethical judg
1379-1405. ment and action in organizations: A moral approbation
approach. Organization Science, 8: 663-680.
Giacalone, R. Α., Paul, K., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. 2005. A preliminary
Jost, J. T„ & Banaji, M. R. 1994. The role of stereotyping in
investigation into the role of positive psychology in con
sumer sensitivity to corporate social performance. Journal system-justification and the production of false conscious
of Business Ethics, 58: 295-305. ness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33: 1-27.
Kasser, T. 2002. The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA:
Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. MIT Press.
Gilligan, C. 1995. Hearing the difference: Theorizing connection.

Kasser, T., Cohn, S., Kanner, A. D., & Ryan, R. M. 2007. Some costs
Hypatia, 10: 120-127. of American corporate capitalism: A psychological explo

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
2013 Giacalone and Pxomislo 99
ration of value Miceli, Μ.and

P., & Near, J. P. goal
1992. Blowing the whistle:
confli Organiza
1-22. tional and legal implications for companies and employees.
New York: Lexington Books.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. 1993
dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. 2008. The rejection of
aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, moral rebels:
65: Resenting those who do the right thing. Jour
410-422. nal ο I Personality and Social Psychology, 95: 76-93.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. 1996. Further examining the American
Moore, T., & Anderson, R. 2011. Economics and internet security:
dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic
A survey of recent analytical, empirical and behavioral
goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22: 280
research. Harvard University Computer Science Group.
287. ftp://ftp.deas.harvard.edu/techreports/tr-03-11 .pdf.
Kittay, E. F. 1999. Love's labor: Essays on women, equality,
Myers,and
D. G. 2007. Costs and benefits of American corporate
dependency. New York: Routledge. capitalism. Psychological Inquiry, 18: 43-47.
Kohn, A. 1986. No contest: The case against competition. Boston:
Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D. M., & Asher, T. 2000. Why people
Houghton Mifflin. stigmatize: Toward a biocultural framework. In T. F. Heath
erton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social
Koltko-Rivera, Μ. E. 2004. The psychology of worldviews. Review
of General Psychology, 8: 3-58. psychology oi stigma: 31-61. New York: Guilford Press.
Newman,
Konrath, S. H., O'Brien, E. H„ & Hsing, C. 2011. Changes in M. 2006. Teaching defiance: Stories and strategies for
activist educators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
dispositional empathy in American College students over
time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology
Noddings, N. 1984. Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and
Review, 15: 180-198. moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. 2001. Evolutionary origins of stigma Press.
tization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Noddings, N. 2002. Starting at home: Caring and social policy.
Bulletin. 127: 187-208.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. 2009. How power influences moral
Paul, R., & Elder, L. 2006. Critical thinking tools for taking charge
thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97:of your learning and your life. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
279-289.
Prentice Hall Publishing.
Leavitt, Η. 1989. Educating our MBAs: On teaching what we
Paumgarten, N. 2010. Food fighter. The New Yorker, January.
haven't taught. California Management Review, 3: 38-50. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/04/100104fa_
Levenson, A. 2010. Millennials and the world of work: An econ fact_paumgarten. Accessed January 10, 2011.
omist's perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25:Payne, S. L., & Giacalone, R. A. 1990. Social psychological ap
257-264.
proaches to the perception of ethical dilemmas. Human
Levinson, M. 2010. The civic empowerment gap: Defining the Relations, 43: 649-665.
problem and locating solutions. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney
Petrecca, L. 2010. Prenuptial agreements: Unromantic, but im
Purta & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on portant. USA Today, March 11. http://www.usatoday.com/
civic engagement in youth: 331-361. Hoboken, NJ: John Wi money/perfi/basics/2010-03-08-prenups08_CV_N.htm. Ac
ley & Sons. cessed January 10, 2011.
Liedtka, J. M. 1996. Feminist morality and competitive reality: A Petruno, T. 2010. Is Fannie mae demonizing mortgage "victims"?
role for an ethic of care. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6: 179—
Los Angeles Times, June 24. http://latimesblogs.latimes.
200.
com/money_co/2010/06/fannie-mae-walkaways-mortgage
Limbaugh, R. 1994. Conservatives promote independence, not strategic-default-loan-mod.html. Accessed Jan. 10, 2011.
dependency. National Minority Politics, 6: 7-8.
Pfuhl, Ε. Η., & Henry, S. 1993. The deviance process (3rd ed.).
Link, B. G., Schwartz, S., Moore, R., Phelan, J., Struening, E., Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Stueve, Α., & Colten, Μ. E. 1995. Public knowledge, attitudes,
Phillips, R. 2003. Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics.
and beliefs about homeless people: Evidence for compas San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
sion fatigue. American Journal of Community Psychology,
23: 533-555. Ray, P. H., & Anderson, S. R. 2000. The cultural creatives. New
York: Three Rivers Press.
Lubrano, A. 2010. In hard times, Americans blame the poor.
Philadelphia Inquirer, February 15. http://articles.philly.com/ Reiter, S. 1997. The ethics of care and new paradigms for ac
2010-02-15/news/25219526_l_poor-children-food-stamps counting practice. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
middle-class. Accessed January, 10, 2011. Journal, 10: 299-324.
Lutz, W. D. 1990. Doublespeak. New York: HarperPerennial. Reynolds, S. J. 2008. Moral attentiveness: Who pays attention to
the moral aspects of life? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:
Mannion, J. 2005. 101 Things you didn't know about the Mafia. 1027-1041.
Avon, MA: Adams Media.
Richins, M. L. 1994. Special possessions and the expression of
Mead, W. R. 2011. Inequality grows as poor, ignorant atheists
material values. Journal of Consumer Research. 21: 522-533.
swamp U.S. http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/
Ripley, A. 2005. 10 questions for Jeffrey Wigand. Time, February
08/21/inequality-grows-as-poor-ignorant-atheists-swamp-us/.
14: 8.
Menz, K.-M. 2010. Corporate social responsibility: Is it rewarded
by the corporate bond market? A critical note. Journal ofRobbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. 2011. Organizational behavior (14th
Business Ethics, 96: 117-134. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
Rokeach, Μ. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: Free Swanson, D„ & Fisher, D. (Eds.). 2010. Toward assessing business
Press. ethics education, vol. 6. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. Α., & Riordan, C. 2002. Impression
management: Building and enhancing reputations at work. Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. 2004. Ethical fading: The role
London: Thompson Learning. of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Re
search, 17: 223-236.
Ryan, W. 1976. Blaming the victim. New York: Knopf.
Thayer-Bacon, B. J. 2000. Transforming critical thinking:
Salvador, R., & Folger, R. 2009. Business ethics and the brain.
Thinking constructively. New York: Teacher's College
Business Ethics Quarterly. 19: 1-31.
Press.
Schaller, Μ. 1999. Intergroup vigilance theory: Implications for
Thinkexist.com, 2012. http://thinkexist.com/quotes/adolf_hitlerl4.
prejudice and discrimination. Paper presented at Annual
html. Accessed September 22, 2012.
Convention of the American Psychological Association.
Boston, MA. Thornton, L. 2009. Leadership ethics training: Why is it so hard
to get it right? Training and Development, 63: 58-61.
Schwartz, B. 2007. There must be an alternative. Psychological
Inquiry. 18: 48-51. Tronto, J. 1993. Moral boundaries: A political argument for an
ethic of care. New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.
Segal, D. 2011. Customer bites retailer? That's the argument.
New York Times, February 12. Valbrun, M. 2011. Conservatives blame the poor for being poor.
http://americaswire.org/drupal7/?q=content/conservatives
Seymour, M. (Ed.). 2004. Educating for humanity. Boulder, CO:
blame-poor-being-poor. Accessed January 18, 2012.
Paradigm.
VanderMey, A. 2009. Harvard's MBA oath goes viral. Business
Sheldon, K. M„ & Kasser, T. 1998. Pursuing personal goals: Skills
enable progress, but not all progress is beneficial. Person
Week.com, June 11. http://www.businessweek.com/
bschools/content/jun2009/bs2009061 l_522427.htm. Accessed
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 1319-1331.
Jan, 10, 2011.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. 2001. Getting older, getting better?
Personal strivings and psychological maturity across the
Velasquez, M. G. 2011. Business ethics: Concepts and cases (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
life span. Developmental Psychology, 37: 491-501.
von Oech, R. Retrieved from http://www.searchquotes.com/
Sherter, A. 2010. Foreclosures: Did wall street banks conspire to
quotation/Take_advantage_of_the_ambiguity_in_the_
rob homeowners? cbsnews.com. October 7. http://www.
cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43548013/foreclosures-did world._Look_at_something_and_think_what_else_it_
might_be./153078/.
wall-street-banks-conspire-to-rob-homeowners/?tag =
bnetdomain. Wagner, M. 2010. The role of corporate sustainability perfor
mance for economic performance: A firm-level analysis
Sidonius, J., & Pratto, F. 1999. Social dominance: An intergroup
of moderation effects. Ecological Economics, 69: 1553
theory oi social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cam
1560.
bridge University Press.
Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. 1999. Corporate
Smith, A. 1790. The theory oi moral sentiments (6th ed.). London:
A. Millar. ethics practices in the mid-1990s: An empirical study of the
fortune 1000. Journal of Business Ethics, 18: 283-294.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). 2001. Handbook oi positive
Weinstein, Ε. Α., & Deutschberger, P. 1963. Some dimensions of
psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
altercasting. Sociometry, 26: 454-466.
Srivastava, Α., Locke, Ε. Α., & Bartol, Κ. M. 2001. Money and
Weise, Ε. 2010. Egg industry resorts to blaming the victim in
subjective well-being: It's not the money, it's the motives.
recall, critics say. USA Today, August 30.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80: 959-971.
Westmorland, L. 2005. Police ethics and integrity: Breaking the
Stangor, C., & Crandall, C. S. 2000. Threat and the social con
struction of stigma. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R.
blue code of silence. Policing and Society, 15: 145-165.
Hebl & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma: Williamson, J. 1974. Beliefs about the motivation of poor persons
62-87. New York: Guilford Publications. and attitudes toward poverty policy. Social Problems, 21:
634-648.
Svetkey, B. 2010. James Cameron: Q&A. The "Avatar" director on
his harshest critics—And his biggest fans. Entertainment
Winkler, I. 2011. The representation of social actors in corporate
Weekly, January 15. codes of ethics. How code language positions internal ac
tors. Journal of Business Ethics, 101: 653-665.
Swanson, D. L. 2004. The buck stops here: Why universities must
reclaim business ethics education. Journal of Academic Witkin, J. 2011. Business studies become environmentally
Ethics. 1: 43-61. friendly. The New York Times, August 25.
Swanson, D. L., & Orlitzky, M. 2006. Executive preference for Yassin,
com J. O. 2005. Demonizing the victims of Katrina. Fairness
pensation structure and normative myopia: A business and and Accuracy in Reporting, November/December, http://
society research project. In B. Kolb (Ed.), The ethics of execuwww.fair.org/index.php?page=2793. Accessed January 10,
tive compensation. New York: Blackwell Publishing. 2011.
Swanson, D., & Fisher, D. (Eds.). 2008. Advancing business ethics

Yunus, M. 2003. Sanier to the poor: Micro-lending and the battle
education, vol. 3. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. against world poverty. New York: Public Affairs.

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC
Robert A. Giacalone, (PhD, State

University of New York, Albany) Mark D. Promislo, (PhD, Temple
is professor of human resource University) is an assistant pro
management at the Fox School fessor of management at Rider
of Business and Management, University's College of Busi
Temple University, in Philadel ness Administration in Law
phia, Pennsylvania. Giacalone's renceville, NJ. Promislo's main
current research interests focus areas of research include the
on ethics and well-being, workplace spirituality, andwork-family
the role of interface, ethics and well-being, and v
changing values in organizational life. organizations.

122.187.167.85 on Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:23:48 UTC

Broken When Entering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Broken When Entering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Broken When Entering: The Stigmatization of Goodness and Business Ethics Education

Author(s): ROBERT A. GIACALONE and MARK D. PROMISLO

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23412394

This content downloaded from