v5 n1 Zakhem on Storsletten & Jakobsen on Kierkegaard and Leadership

abe_zakhem“Kierkegaard and Leadership Theory, a Radical Reappraisal” by Abe J. Zakhem

A COMMENTARY ON Vivi Storsletten and Ove Jakobsen (2015), “Development of Leadership Theory in the Perspective of Kierkegaard’s Philosophy,” J Bus Ethics 128(2): 337–349, http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2106-y

Storsletten and Jakobsen (2015) try to integrate the instrumental, responsible, and spiritual positions in leadership studies with Kierkegaard’s aesthetic, ethical, and religious modes of existence. Their combination of leadership theory and Kierkegaardian thought, however, seems deeply problematic. In particular, the instrumental-aesthetic and responsible-ethical connections appear weak or at least significantly underdeveloped, and the spiritual-religious connection seems logically inconsistent.

To download the full PDF, click here: Zakhem on Storsletten & Jakobsen

v4 n9 Brennan and Jaworski Respond to Taylor on ‘Markets Without WHAT Limits?’

Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski“I’ll Pay You Ten Bucks Not to Murder Me” by Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski

A RESPONSE TO James Stacey Taylor (2016), “What Limits Should Markets be Without?”Bus Ethics J Rev 4(7): 41–46.

Abstract: James Stacey Taylor offers three interpretations of our thesis, and argues that only one of them goes through. His point is to clarify our view rather than critique our position. In this brief response, we argue that, upon further clarification, we could endorse at least one of the other interpretations, though as Taylor notes, we don’t need to for our book’s thesis to go through.

To download the full PDF, click here: Brennan and Jaworski Respond to Taylor.

v4 n8 Moriarty Responds to Barbeau

“The Demands of Stakeholder Theory for Corporate Governance” by Jeffrey Moriarty

A RESPONSE TO Aimee Barbeau (2016), “Deliberative Democracy and Corporate Governance”Bus Ethics J Rev 4(6): 34–40.

Abstract: Aimee Barbeau advances a thoughtful critique of my article, “The Connection Between Stakeholder Theory and Stakeholder Democracy: An Excavation and Defense.” Although Barbeau does much to push forward the debate about corporate governance, she does it without undermining my thesis. For what Barbeau has shown is not that stakeholder theorists should not endorse stakeholder boards of directors, but that they should also endorse other ways for stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes within firms.

To download the full PDF, click here: Moriarty Responds to Barbeau

v4 n7 Taylor on Brennan and Jaworski on Markets Without Limits

James.S.Taylor“What Limits Should Markets be Without?” by James Stacey Taylor

A COMMENTARY ON Jason Brennan and Peter M. Jaworski (2016), Markets Without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests (New York: Routledge)

In Markets Without Limits Brennan and Jaworski defend the view that there are “no legitimate worries about what we buy, trade, and sell.” But rather than being a unified defense of this position Brennan and Jaworski unwittingly offer three distinct pro-commodification views—two of which are subject to counterexamples. This Commentary will clarify what should be the thesis of their volume and identify the conditions that any counter-example to this must meet.

To download the full PDF, click here: Taylor on Brennan and Jaworski

v4 n6 Barbeau on Moriarty on Democratic Corporate Governance

Aimee Barbeau“Deliberative Democracy and Corporate Governance” by Aimee E. Barbeau

A COMMENTARY ON Jeffrey Moriarty (2014), “The Connection Between Stakeholder Theory and Stakeholder Democracy: An Excavation and Defense,” Bus & Soc 53(6): 820–852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0007650312439296

Jeffrey Moriarty argues for a return to a robust notion of stakeholder theory involving direct procedural voting by stakeholders. He asserts that such voting offers the best possible chance of restraining firm behavior and taking into account all stakeholder interests. I argue, however, that Moriarty proceeds with an overly narrow conception of democracy, ignoring problems that arise from procedural voting. Specifically, paradoxes in voting procedures, the tyranny of the majority, and the inefficacy of representation advantage well-organized and moneyed interests. A stakeholder democracy may in fact undermine the very interests that Moriarty seeks to promote.

To download the full PDF, click here: Barbeau on Moriarty

v4 n5 Thauer Responds to van der Ven

thauer“The Choice for CSR: Strategic Rationale versus Values?” by Christian R. Thauer

A RESPONSE TO Hamish van der Ven (2013), “Bringing Values Back into CSR”Bus Ethics J Rev 1(16): 99–105.

Abstract: In a recent Commentary, Hamish van der Ven criticizes my strategic rationale-based approach to why firms decide to adopt and implement CSR standards. He argues that my approach is analytically flawed; rather than strategic rationale, values motivate firms in favor of CSR. In this response, I explain why I disagree with his criticism and approach. I maintain that strategic rationale, not values, drive firms’ decision-making for CSR.

To download the full PDF, click here: Thauer responds to van der Ven

v4 n4 Schäfer and Hühn on Levine and Boaks


Huehn Navarra“How much Aristotle is in Levine & Boaks’ Leadership Theory?” by Viktoria Ramona Schäfer and Matthias Philip Hühn

A COMMENTARY ON Michael P. Levine and Jacqueline Boaks (2014), “What Does Ethics Have to do with Leadership?” J Bus Ethics 124:225-242.

Levine and Boaks criticize the extant leadership literature for misrepresenting the connection between ethics and leadership. They propose a definition that they claim is novel and based on Aristotelian virtue ethics. This commentary argues that this approach, while it is an interesting idea, is essentially un-Aristotelian and that other approaches, for instance Alejo Sison’s and Joanne Ciulla’s are not only closer to Aristotle, but also do not have the problems that the authors identify in the mainstream of the leadership literature.

To download the full PDF, click here: Schäfer and Hühn on Levine and Boaks