cv of coudhry babar

Corporate Integrity and Public Interest: A Relational Approach to Business Ethics andLeadershipAuthor(s): Marvin T. BrownSource: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 66, No. 1, Proceedings of the 18th Eben AnnualConference in Bonn (Jun., 2006), pp. 11-18Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123808 .

Accessed: 10/11/2014 04:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 121.52.158.248 on Mon, 10 Nov 2014 04:06:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123808?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 66: 11-18

DOI 10.1007A10551-006-9050-4

Corporate Integrity and Public Interest:

A Relational Approach to Business Ethics

and Leadership

? Springer 2006

Marvin T. Brown

ABSTRACT. This paper approaches the question of

corporate integrity and leadership from a civic perspec

tive, which means that corporations are seen as members

of civil society, corporate members are seen as citizens,

and corporate decisions are guided by civic norms. Cor

porate integrity, from this perspective, requires that the

communication patterns that constitute interpersonal

relationships at work exhibit the civic norm of reciprocity

and acknowledge the need for security and the right to

participate. Since leaders are members of corporate rela

tionships, their integrity will be determined by the

integrity of these interpersonal relationships, and by their

efforts to improve them.

KEY WORDS: corporate integrity, leadership, civic

ethics, relationships

It may seem from the title of my address that I

have a lot to cover in a short amount of time. On the

other hand, I believe that there is a strong congru ence between corporate integrity and public interest,

which makes it possible to focus on a specific

question. Here is the question I want to address: Can

leaders have integrity in a corporation that lacks integrity? What is the relationship, in other words, between

the integrity of business leaders and the integrity of

their corporations? If business leaders can have

integrity leading corporations without integrity, then many of the current leadership programs for

business students, senior managers and executives

make a lot of sense. On the other hand, if business

leaders cannot have integrity in corporations that

lack integrity, then most of these programs will need

some major re-tooling.

The first step in answering this question is to

develop a picture of corporate integrity that shows

its place in civil society. This picture will also reveal

the need for a civic ethics, which in turn will help us

understand the role of business leaders in the mul

tiple systems in which corporations exist.

Different views of corporations

As you know, people have very different views of

corporations. Some people see them as the property of owners. Corporations are things that you can buy and

sell. They are commodities. This is true, from a

financial perspective. However, since leaders lead

people rather than things, this view is not adequate for a conversation about corporate integrity and

leadership. We can also see

corporations as corporate citizens.

This has become a rather popular view. This view

sees corporations

as being responsive to the com

munities in which they exist ? as a good citizen.

Assuming this view, however, entails some risks. It

risks focusing on a corporation's "good" works, instead of their everyday operations. Automobile

companies, for example, may give thousands for

health care while spending billions advertising SUVs.

This is simply crazy making. The citizen view also tends to privatize the very

notion of citizenship. Instead of the term referring to

those who are involved in designing how we should

Uve together, it tends to portray citizenship as

engaging in voluntary projects that aid those in need.

We may disagree about the seriousness of these

dangers, but for now, I think we can agree that

Marvin T. Brown teaches business and organizational ethics at

the University of San Francisco and at the Saybrook Grad

uate School in San Francisco, California. His latest book,

Corporate Integrity, was published by Cambridge University Press in 2005.



12 Marvin T. Brown

corporations are not really citizens. So what are they?

They can be seen as purposeful human organizations. At

the most elementary level, a corporation is an

organization designed to accomplish some goal. And

what are organizations?

Definition of organizations

Think about how an organization begins. People start talking together about running a business. They

develop a mutually understood vocabulary or ter

minology, and slowly establish specific patterns of

communication. These communication patterns, it

seems to me, are what people join when they join an

organization.

Organizations, in other words, can be understood

as a series of communications, both verbal and

nonverbal, in which people participate. The verbal

communication includes mission and policy state

ments, as well as daily conversations. The non-verbal

includes work design, daily schedules and organiza tional structures.

As organizations, corporations can also be seen as

human systems that exist in larger systems, and their

role in these systems largely determines their pur

pose. As our various social systems have become

more complicated and more threatening to the

environment, this notion of a corporation's purpose has become more critical.

For example, I would suggest that in order to

understand the purpose of automobile companies, we need to see them as part of the transportation

system. Other agencies also belong to this system, of

course, such as governments, non-profits, and other

firms. In fact, much of the funding for the road and

highways comes from public funds. So the system itself has multiple actors. Furthermore, this trans

portation system is embedded in and dependent on

the natural environment.

The first question is: "What kind of transporta tion system do we want?" If we want a sustainable

transportation system, for example, so future gen erations will not have to pay the costs of our

indulgences, automobile corporations would have to

radically change their line of current products. The big question is who should determine the

design of this transportation system? That is a big

question, but not the right one. I think the right

question is what should be the perspective and the

commitments of those various agencies ?

public and

private ? that are part of this system? And the answer

to this question, I think, is that they should take up a

civic perspective and approach their work together as citizens.

Relationship between economy and civil

society: A civic perspective

This answer, of course, raises the issue of the

appropriate relationship between the economy and

civil society. A dominant view looks at these two

entities as belonging to different spheres, each with

its own rules and values. I want to suggest a different

view; namely that the economy exists in the context

of civic society. A contextual analysis, it seems to

me, recognizes the dependence of the market

economy on all kinds of social capital as well as the

rule of law.

This picture of corporations embedded in larger

systems and of the economy embedded in civil

society seems like an adequate description of reality, more adequate, I would say, than the idea of separate

spheres. It also invites us to look at the relationship between corporations and the systems in which they exist from a civic perspective.

I want to suggest that we begin doing ethics as

citizens and that we see people at work as citizens

and corporations as members of civil society. This

civic perspective and civic context can be used to

overcome the current privatization of business ethics

and return ethics to politics. By the "privatization of

ethics" I am referring to ethical projects based on the

separation of the world of business from the world of

politics or public concern. If business ethics were to

become a civic ethics, it would represent a return to

Aristotle's idea that ethics belongs to politics.

Although Aristotle has been a major source

for contemporary ethics and especially an ethics of

virtue, his belief that ethics belongs to politics has

been largely forgotten. For Aristotle and for the

Greeks in general, it was impossible to be virtuous

outside of human society. As Martin Oswald has

commented, for Aristotle, "a hermit is incapable of

acting virtuously" (Oswald, 1962, p. xxiv) This does not mean that we need to follow the

same civic virtues as one finds in classical Greek



Corporate Integrity and Public Interest 13

society. In fact, a new civic ethic would require some long conversations about what civic norms

would be appropriate. My list would include the

following:

Integrity ?

pursuing relational wholeness

Reciprocity ? mutual giving and receiving

Dialogue ?

engaging in open conversations

Justice -

treating people fairly Freedom ? access to goods for self-development Care -

solidarity with others

Harmony ?

a well-ordered and secure society

Can a market economy be held accountable to

this list of norms? Without question, there are

other values or norms, such as resource produc

tivity or efficiency that belong to a market

economy. Such norms, however, would not nec

essarily violate the civic norms Usted here. A more

serious question is whether the market economy has its own rules that could override civic norms.

What is the relationship between market compe tition and civic norms?

To answer this question, let us imagine different

types of competition on a continuum, with the

competition of ideas on the one end and the com

petition of war on the other. In a civic setting, the

conflict between different ideas is resolved by

engaging in pubUc discourse where the most per suasive arguments carry the day

or at least carry a

majority of those involved. In war, the conflict is

resolved by force and miUtary power. So we have public deUberation on one end of

the spectrum and war on the other. Where should

we place market transactions? This question be

comes easier to answer if we first look at another

type of competition that is often seen as very similar to market competition; the competition in

sports.

A basic difference between the competition in

sports and the competition in poUtics is that the

interactions in sports are guided by the rules of the

game instead of civic norms. In boxing, for example, the rules of the game aUow one person to attempt to

throw a knockout blow to the opponent's jaw,

something that would be considered quite uncivil in

pubUc discourse.

Different sports have different rules, of course,

and some games are closer to civic norms than

others. The point here, however, is that sports allow

the suspension of civic norms for the sake of the

game, and then opposing teams or individuals must

abide by these rules to defeat the opponent. I want to suggest that business is not a sport.

Unlike sports, all the participants in the market have

not agreed to suspend civic norms. Quite the

opposite, people depend on them. The market place is different than the sports arena. Business transac

tions should be guided by civic norms, including the

norms of reciprocity and integrity. Furthermore, because the norms do not change from the public

square to the market place, nor should citizens lose

their civic rights and responsibilities when they go to

work. Business, in other words, should not operate

according to its own rules, but according to the

norms of civil society. Peter Ulrich has made a

similar point:

The economic players, in all of their roles, must

first of all be approached as citizens who

acknowledge certain moral duties; as reflective

consumers and capital investors, as critically loyal

"organization citizens" in the working world, and

as citizens of the state... Understood in this way, the republican ethos is indivisible. And it is also

expressed in the fundamental willingness of the

individual to pursue only those private goals, which are compatible with the legitimacy con

ditions of a well-ordered society of free and equal citizens. (Ulrich, 2002, p. 28)

From a civic perspective, we can see that "Corporate

integrity and Public Interest" are not two spheres, but rather two containers where one contains the

other.

The civic perspective suggests an alternative to the

business case for corporate social responsibility,

namely the civic case for corporate integrity. The differences are not inconsequential. The civic

case provides a platform for all citizens to participate ? both corporate insiders and outsiders. It also

overcomes the privatization of citizenship and of

ethics, and allows us in business ethics to also include

the civic realm in our horizon. Finally, as a civic

ethic, business ethics can safeguard the integrity of

corporations, as well as the integrity of civil society and of democratic institutions. Business ethics, in

other words, can join the challenge of developing



14 Marvin T. Brown

social systems that promote the integrity of all the

parts that make up the whole.

From this civic perspective, we can now finish

our picture of corporate integrity and then see

whether leaders can have integrity when their cor

porations lack it.

A picture of corporate integrity

We begin with our understanding of corporations as

organizations, constituted by on-going verbal and

non-verbal communication patterns. This is impor tant because corporate integrity wiU depend on the

character of these communication patterns. What is

said and not done; what is said and not said; who in

included and not included; what topics are addressed

and not addressed; aU these choices will determine

the level of integrity of any corporation. The most common aspect of integrity is the

relationship between what is said and what is done, or what we could caU consistency between word and

deed. This is the way Charles Watson uses integrity in his book Managing with Integrity:

There is wholeness in what the person with

integrity says and does. ... He seems undisturbed

by the opinions that others hold or express about

him and what he honors. His upright conduct is

made possible through steadfast adherence to

unbending principles and standards, and his

character is marked by an undaunted quest for

important ends far larger than his own needs,

comfort, and interests. (Watson, 1991, p. 171)

This understanding of personal integrity is certainly

praiseworthy in some cases. Taken as the complete definition of integrity, however, it leaves us with a

potentially dangerous use of the term. Imagine for a

moment that this person with integrity is a totally unconscious individual, who is unaware of his

privileges, but beUeves that everyone has had similar

opportunities as he has had.

Does his integrity here - being undisturbed by the

opinions of others and practicing steadfast adherence

to unbending principles and standards - help or

prevent him from becoming conscious of his rela

tionships with others in larger social and economic

systems? If integrity means wholeness, and if a

particular consistency prevents one from an awareness

of one's whole situation, then consistency would

actually prevent the creation of integrity, so relational

awareness is the second aspect of corporate integrity. The third part of any complete picture of cor

porate integrity is pursuing a worthwhile purpose. To ascribe integrity to an organization or group means that they are praiseworthy for their endeavors.

They are up to some good. Organizations designed to take advantage of others, to exploit the weak or

elderly even if they are consistent in their actions, will not be praised for having integrity. Consistency

is not enough; integrity also requires doing some

thing good. These various meanings of integrity are

not really opposed to each other, but rather together

give us a standard not only for assessing the integrity of any corporation, but also for improving it.

There are five different dimensions of corporate life that are subject to such an assessment and

improvement: the cultural, interpersonal, organiza

tional, social and natural. Each of these dimensions

can either block or enable corporate integrity. (See

Figure 1.) It is impossible to explore what is required on

each of these dimensions to promote a holistic view

of corporate integrity. I have attempted to do this in

my book on corporate integrity (Brown, 2005). I

will focus today on the interpersonal, but since all

five are interrelated, we can briefly mention each

one's requirement for integrity. The challenge on the cultural level is to be open

to different cultures because integrity as wholeness

requires us to include other cultures.

On the interpersonal level, the challenge is to

acknowledge the multiple relationships that one

brings to work as well as the relationships developed at work.

Cultural

Interpersonal

Organizational

Social

Natural

Figure 1. Five dimensions of corporate integrity.




So what do family and civic relationships add to the

notion of reciprocity? I want to suggest that the core

meaning of family relationships can be found in the

psychological field of attachment theory. One of the

key contributors to this field, John Bowlby writes:

Human infants, we can safely conclude, like

infants of other species, are preprogrammed to

develop in a socially cooperative way; whether

they do so or not turns in high degree on how

they are treated." (Bowlby, 1988, p. 9)

Bowlby's conclusion means that humans are not

preprogrammed to be greedy or selfish, as some

might think. Instead, they are wired to develop in

and through cooperative relationships.

Bowlby's research supports the feminist position

proposed by Held (1993) and others that the mother

and child image more correctly represents our hu

man nature than the image of the "economic man."

This certainly would be contrary to much of the

Western, patriarchal tradition, and yet, it does seem

to conform to our deepest experiences. We begin connected to others, not separated from them. I

think that integrity as relational awareness means that

this need for secure relationships must be recognized in the world of work.

While humans have always been members of

families, they have not always been members of civic

communities in which they could be citizens. In a

kingdom, for example, people are subjects, not citi

zens. So what makes one a citizen rather than a

subject? Perhaps the most important difference is that a citizen has a say in determining the qualifications for

citizenship, and a subject does not. If you do not have a say, then you are subject to other people's decisions.

To participate in, or at least to have your views

represented in, the process of making decisions about

the character and structure of the communities to

which you belong is a core meaning of citizenship. Somehow, this core meaning should be recognized at

work. Adding reciprocity to the notions of secure

and civic, we see that meeting the challenge of

interpersonal integrity would require conversations

that promote secure civic reciprocal relationships.

(See Figure 2.) So how would business leaders fit in these rela

tionships? It all depends on whether we take up an

individual or a relational view of leadership. The

On the organizational level, integrity requires that

corporations have a worthwhile purpose that can be

a reliable guide for their decisions.

A corporation's social challenge is for corpora tions to develop cooperative relationships with other

private and government agencies. We saw this

dimension earlier when we looked at the social

context of automobile companies.

Finally, the fifth challenge calls for the inclusion

of corporations in the natural environment so that all

of nature, both human and nonhuman communities,

prospers together.

So, a complete picture of corporate integrity would consist of verbal and non-verbal communi

cation patterns that are open to differences and dis

agreements conscious of human relationships,

guided by a worthwhile purpose, engaged in civic

cooperation, and promotes prosperity for all natural

communities.

Getting there will take wise and effective leaders.

It will take leaders with integrity. To see what this

means, we need to spell-out in more detail the

interpersonal dimension of corporate integrity. This

is the dimension that looks at the conversations

among workers and managers in terms of relational

awareness.

Interpersonal relational awareness

Integrity as wholeness requires us to consider that

work relationships are not limited to relationships at

work, but also must include the fact that workers are

also members of families and members of civil

society. Just as corporations are not isolated entities

but are parts of larger systems, so also are workers

members of other communities that must be rec

ognized, especially the communities of family and

civic life. Given this relational awareness, what

would integrity require? We already know that interpersonal relationships

at work should be guided by civic norms. Business

relationships should not be subject to the rules of

some game. Without too much analysis, we can

probably agree that a key norm for relationships at

work is reciprocity, especially reciprocity of

exchange. Exchanges should be such that each party

gains, at least in the long run, and no one is exploited for another's advantage.



16 Marvin T. Brown

Core Meaning of

Family

Relationships

The Need for

Security

Work

Relationships as

Secure

Civic Reciprocity

Core Meaning of

Civic

Relationships

The Right to

Participate

Figure 2. Interpersonal relationships at work.

individual view sees leaders and foUowers as essen

tiaUy separate from each other and the leader uses his

or her skiUs and talents to bridge the gap between

them. Leadership, in this view, is essentiaUy a form

of marketing. The relational view, on the other hand, sees the

leader as a participant with the followers in on-going conversations and co-creating each other. Leaders

and followers, in other words, are co-dependent

on

each other. Both rely on a secure base and the right to participate. Both foUowers and leaders are mem

bers of the organization. FinaUy, we can say that

leaders and foUowers both belong to civ? society and

should relate to one another as citizens.

Does this make business leaders civic leaders?

WeU, this is somewhat risky, especiaUy if we see

civic leaders only as individuals. In her recent

book on leadership (1999), Barbara KeUerman ar

gues that poUtical leaders have become more Uke

business leaders and business leaders have become

more Uke poUtical leaders. There seems to be

some truth to her observation. In the United

States, for example, presidents are now judged by how weU the economy is doing more than by how weU pubUc institutions are doing. Mayors of

cities and governors of states are praised for their

economic development successes more than for

their successes in improving the possibiUties for

participatory democracy. So while poUtical leaders have become more

business-Uke, business leaders have in certain respects become more democratic. Even more so, the lead

ership Uterature has become more concerned with

democratic practices. KeUerman (in KeUerman,

1999) offers the foUowing Ust of ideas that she has

found in books on corporate leadership:

Create a vision

Foster diversity

Empower everyone

Create networks

Hang loose

Always learn

Rethink motivation

Level with everyone

This list applies not only to corporate and political

leaders, from Kellerman's perspective, but also to

non-profit leaders. "The key tasks are the same (for

for-profits and non-profits): creating a vision, com

municating the vision, enlisting and empowering

others, planning strategically and tactically, and

implementing." This individualistic view of leaders does not ne

glect that leaders will lead followers. It just assumes

that the leader's skills and talents can craft the con

nection between leaders and followers. Integrity in

this situation resides in the character of the leader, not in the relationship between leaders and follow

ers. Accordingly, it has all the dangers that we

identified earlier with limiting integrity to individual

consistency. It ignores relational awareness and does

not identify with a group's worthwhile purpose. This individualistic view does allow Kellerman

to emphasize the similarity between business and

political leaders. I also think there are important similarities: they are both bound by civic norms, or we could say that they are both civic leaders,

because they both exist in civic relationships with

their followers. The organizations they belong to,

however, are quite different, and this has some

consequences.

Political leaders, at least in democratic societies, are elected by their followers and they serve as their

representatives. The relationship between politicians and voters can be quite dynamic, with politicians

trying to educate their representatives, but in the

final analysis, the leadership task is to represent the

will of the electorate, not the leader's will. In

political organizations, integrity resides in the

relationship between politicians and the people they

represent.

The story is quite different for business leaders.

Business leaders have the task of leading their orga nization's workers to accomplish some goal. The




purpose of the organization is not to design how we

should live together, which is the goal of politics, but to get something accomplished. As I continually heard when I was working with Levi Strauss and

Company: the goal was "to get the pants out the

door." Business leaders lead to get the work done, which is not true of political leaders.

Here is the hitch: If we argue that workers should

be recognized as citizens, which we have, and we see

the role of business leaders to direct the work that

workers do, why should citizen/workers submit to

these orders? As we said before, people submit to

another's rule in a kingdom, not in a democracy. Can the relationship between workers and managers, followers and leaders at work, really be a relationship

among citizens? What gives one citizen in the

workplace the right to give directives to other

citizens?

McMahon (1994) provides us an answer: he

makes a distinction between domination and sub

ordination, and then argues that citizens can subor

dinate themselves to others if it enables them to

accomplish their goals, which in case would be to

pursue the corporation's worthwhile purpose. As

McMahon points out, this is similar to a widely held

justification for obeying laws in general. Obeying laws provides stability and order, which most people

believe is to their advantage. If the work relationships are secure, civic and

reciprocal, and the leader or managers directives

facilitate the accomplishment of the company's

goals, then workers have not given up their rights as

citizens, but rather have exercised them in choosing to work together in a productive and effective way.

This assumes, of course, that the work is worthwhile

doing. Workers need to be connected to the larger

purpose of the work, to see their part in the larger whole, and to accept this purpose as worthwhile. In

such cases, their work will have integrity, as will the

relationships in which they do their work.

If leaders participate in these relationships of

integrity, they can enjoy the same quality of human

relationships as other members. One could argue, in

fact, that leaders must be members before they can

be leaders. The term "leader" is a relational term.

Like parent or teacher, it does not signify an isolated

person, but a person in relation. Once a person is a

member of an organization, and understands the

work of promoting relationships of integrity, then

they can actively lead other members in two ways:

by designing the context for conversational integrity and by showing signs of corporate integrity.

Designing the context for corporate integrity

Designing and redesigning organizations is largely a

process of changing their verbal and nonverbal

communication patterns. Paul Dolan, a leader in a

large winery in California describes it this way:

As leaders, our job is to cultivate our people,

bringing out their best and create a rich, human

whole greater than the sum of the parts. That's

culture: something bigger than the individuals

within a group, which they nevertheless are an

integral part of. Teamwork becomes more natu

ral, because everyone knows why the work the

next person is doing is valuable. If they're talking about that context all the time, if they are con

stantly looking at their workplace, their products and their processes from the standpoint of ful

filling themselves and their purpose, you can

hardly keep up with the ideas they bring forth.

(Dolan and Elkjer, 2003, pp. 64-65)

Perhaps more than anything else, leading teams and

groups involves giving signs of appropriate expec tations. These expectations are not

only about

coming forth and speaking one's mind, but also

about the appropriate boundaries between persons,

among different teams, as well as between corpora tions and other civic organizations.

Leaders can also be participants in conversations,

and through their participation, display that corpo rate integrity is part of the corporate agenda. Cor

porate integrity becomes apparent when people

practice openness, provide safety, voice their con

cerns, refer to worthwhile purposes, cooperate with

others, and include nature in their plans. So, now we can return to our

question: Can

leaders have integrity in a corporation that lacks

integrity? I think we know the answer. Leaders have

integrity only to the degree that they participate in

and promote corporate integrity. This may seem

obvious to some and intolerant to others. Cannot we

have it both ways? What happened to seeing both

sides? Well, contrary to the hosts of talk shows, in



18 Marvin T. Brown

some cases both sides do not have equaUy valid and

sound arguments. I think this is one of those cases.

Corporate integrity requires secure civic and re

ciprocal relationships pursing a worthwhile purpose.

People who work toward developing such rela

tionships would certainly be leading with integrity. We need such leaders. I would hope that business

ethics would become a civic ethic, and join the work

of improving the integrity not only of corporations, but also of civil society. I think we would discover

new ways to support and to celebrate the work of

business leaders and other civic leaders who find

their integrity in the integrity of their organizations.

References

Bowlby, J.: 1988, A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment

and Health Human Development (Basic Books, New

York). Brown, M. T.: 2005, Corporate Integrity: Rethinking

Organizational Ethics and Leadership (Cambridge Uni

versity Press, Cambridge).

Dolan, P. with T. Elkjer: 2003, 'True to Our Root:

Fermenting a Business Revolution (Bloomberg Press,

Princeton).

Held, V.: 1993, Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture,

Society, and Politics (The University of Chicago Press,

Chicago and London). Kellermann, B.: 1999, Reinventing Leadership: Making the

Connection Between Politics and Business (State Univer

sity of New York Press, New York). McMahon, C: 1994, Authority and Democracy: A General

Theory of Government and Management (Princeton

University Press, Princeton, New Jersey).

Oswald, M.: 1962, Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, trans.

Martin Oswald, (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ). Ulrich, P.: 2002, 'Ethics and Economies', in Zsolnai

Laszlo (ed.), Ethics in the Economy: Handbook of Business

Ethics (Peter Lang, Oxford). Watson, C. E.: 1991, Managing with Integrity: Insights from

America's CEOs (Praeger, New York).

Department of Philosophy

University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton Street,

San Francisco, CA, 94117-1080, U.S.A.

E-mail: [email protected]



cv of coudhry babar

Career

integrity of business

picture of corporate

integrity leading corporations

journal of business

cor porate integrity

corporate members

civic ethics

business students