Philosophy for Business

P·4·B

Philosophy for Business
electronic journal

ISSN 2043-0736

Home/ Archive

Ethical Dilemmas
Kindle eBook

International Society
for Philosophers

Friends  &  sponsors

Philosophie & Wirtschaft



Launched on 2 November 2003, Philosophy for Business is an e-journal published by the International Society for Philosophers, looking at philosophical and ethical aspects of business practice.

We are aiming for a wide circulation to companies and corporations around the world, as well as academic philosophers.

In order to gain the widest possible readership, articles should be written in simple, non-technical language. The target length is 2500 words.

Some themes that we will be looking at:

   Globalization and monopoly
   Is business ethics possible?
   Philosophy of economics
   Practical ethics
   Idea of a code of conduct
   Freedom of speech
   Industrial democracy
   Whistle blowing
   Ecology and sustainability
   Education and health
   Business and the law
   Tax avoidance and evasion



Please send articles for Philosophy for Business to the List Manager/ Chief Editor Geoffrey Klempner at klempner@fastmail.net.

If you would like to receive Philosophy for Business, or unsubscribe, please go to https://lists.shef.ac.uk/sympa/
info/businesspathways
.

Philosophy for Business is published by the International Society for Philosophers.

The journal is distributed by email via the University of Sheffield list server.

The views expressed in this newsletter do not necessarily reflect those of the Editors or List Manager. If you have any suggestions, comments or criticisms, or if you would like to be an Editor, please write to the List Manager at klempner@fastmail.net.

Philosophy for Business is an open access journal, as defined by the Budapest Open Access Initiative.

In accordance with UK Law (April 2013) all content is archived by the British Library and is available within the reading rooms of all Legal Deposit Libraries.



LIST MANAGER

Geoffrey Klempner

klempner@fastmail.net




EDITORS

Daniel Silvermintz
Silvermintz@uhcl.edu

Tom C. Veblen
SuperBizRT@aol.com

Marco Senatore
marco.senatore@tesoro.it

Peter S Borkowski
p.borkowski@aui.ma

Dena Hurst
dena.hurst@appa.edu

Sean Jasso
sean.jasso@pepperdine.edu





International Society for Philosophers
[back to archive]

P H I L O S O P H Y   F O R   B U S I N E S S           ISSN 2043-0736
http://www.isfp.co.uk/businesspathways/

Issue number 60
28th May 2010

CONTENTS

I. 'Redefining the Good Life in a Sustainable Society' by Rafael D.
Pangilinan

II. Philosophy of Management: Two Calls for Papers

III. Public Lecture: 'Some Types of Political Reasoning' by Alasdair
MacIntyre

-=-

EDITOR'S NOTE

We celebrate the 60th issue of Philosophy for Business with an
article by Rafael Pangilinan which addresses what is perhaps the most
important single question facing the world today: how to reformulate
our conception of the 'good life', in the Aristotelian sense of that
which all activity, and in particular economic activity, aims. If the
human race is to survive, endless consumption must give way to a more
thoughtful way of living which values quality over quantity,
friendship over competition, and simplicity over endless
thrill-seeking.

Also in this issue are two calls for papers for Special Editions of
the respected journal, edited by Nigel Laurie, Philosophy for
Management: 'Philosophical Lessons from the Global Financial Crisis',
guest edited by Martin Kelly and Arnis Vilks; and 'A Unique Role for a
'Philosophy of Management'?' guest edited by Stephen Sheard and Martin
Dibbin.

Finally, the renowned British moral and political philosopher
Alasdair MacIntyre, author of A Short History of Ethics and After
Virtue: a study in moral theory returns to the shores of the UK after
40 years teaching in American Universities, with an appointment as
Senior Research Fellow in CASEP, the Centre for Contemporary
Aristotelian Studies in Ethics and Politics, at London Metropolitan
University. To mark the occasion, Professor MacIntyre will be
delivering a public lecture on Monday 7th June.

Geoffrey Klempner

-=-

I. 'REDEFINING THE GOOD LIFE IN A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY' BY RAFAEL D.
PANGILINAN

Everyone wants a good life. And obviously a good life can be defined
in many ways. Economists, politicians, and advertisers assume that
consuming goods leads to quality of life and constantly remind us
that we should want prosperity. Does prosperity equate with a good
life? Should we let them define for us what a good life is? Why not
give some thought for redefining the good life and take charge of our
own destiny?

The physical conditions in which we live our lives set some
boundaries that must be observed as we proceed with our redefinition.
To be sure, we can do a lot to redefine our physical conditions. We
might move to another place, assuming that someone does not already
occupy the place we want to take. Proffering lots of money may
encourage the present occupant to allow us to take possession. Having
lots of power allow us to take over by force in the way that we
routinely seize habitat from wildlife. Our cleverness and technology
have stretched many boundaries and opened up many possibilities. Some
people believe we can proceed indefinitely to manipulate nature and
extend its boundaries.

We have successfully extended human longevity by improving public
health and by appropriating more and more of the biosphere to our
purposes. We have unintentionally achieved a human population
explosion which is ruining quality of life in many parts of the
world. The planet's ecosphere and resource base may not tolerate even
two more doublings of world population (to 20 billion). Either we
thoughtfully limit our reproduction or nature will limit us by
starvation and disease.

At the very time of our population explosion, we are achieving a
drastic increase in throughput of materials in our economy. Not only
does accelerating economic activity swiftly draw down our resource
stocks (many of them nonrenewable) but it also creates so much waste
that it is seriously injuring ecosystems and changing global
geosphere/ biosphere patterns. We are recklessly perturbing biosphere
systems that are so complex that we cannot know that consequences of
our actions. Swift and powerful changes in global climate patterns
would devastate our economies, destroy many of our resource stocks,
and bring death to billions of humans.

Even if some drastic technological breakthrough enabled humans to
keep growing in population and economic activity, would we want to
live in the world that continuing growth would create? Within a
century there would be 20 billion or more people. To prosperously
support that many people, most of the biosphere's productivity would
have to be turned to human needs. Most of the wilderness would be
gone and those species that escaped extinction would be confined to
reserves. To prevent feverish economic activity from constantly
changing geosphere/ biosphere patterns, and to make life somewhat
comfortable, our daily existence would be confined to artificial city
environments where air, water, and material processing were all
carefully controlled. With that many people, life would be made
tolerable only by severely restricting personal freedom. Is that the
kind of world you want? Would that be a good life? By continuing to
define progress and the good life as growth in material consumption,
that is, where we are headed.

A key aspect of my argument, then, is that continuing growth in human
population and material consumption is not desirable (we do not want
to go there) and very likely not possible.

If growth is a false god, no longer deserving of our worship, our
society must rethink what living a good life means. One fundamental
mistake we must correct is our penchant for trying to define the good
life in material quantities and express it in monetary terms. Quality
in a living is not a thing, it is a feeling; it is necessarily a
matter of subjective experience. Recognizing its subjective character
does not mean we cannot have a rational discourse about it.

Quality in living is experienced only by individuals and is
necessarily subjective. Objective conditions may contribute to or
detract from the experience of quality but human reactions to
physical conditions are not automatic: the experience occurs only
subjectively. Personal reports of experiences of quality are much
better indicators of these subjective experiences than physical
measures of physical conditions. (We should carefully distinguish
environmental conditions that can be measured with objective
indicators from the experience of quality that can only be measured
with subjective indicators.)

Quality is not a constant state but a variable ranging from high
quality to low quality. Persons usually experience some combination
of high and low quality; they seldom experience only one extreme of
the other. Persons have high quality when they experience the
following: (i) a sense of happiness but not simply a momentary
happiness; rather a long-run sense of joy in living; (ii) a sense of
physical well-being; usually this means good health but the sense of
physical well-being can be realized by persons having lost certain
capacities; (iii) a sense of completeness or fullness of life; a
sense that one is on the way of achieving, or has achieved, what one
aspires to become as a person; and (iv) a sense of zestful
anticipation of life's unfolding drama, greeting each day with hope
and confidence that living it will be good.

We should carefully distinguish quality of life judgments that are
individual (personal) and subjective, from prescriptions for a good
society. Individual experiences with the quality of this or that
aspect of life do not translate directly into policy even though they
are important informational inputs for policy makers. Ecosystem and
social systems values must be served in policy making as well as
quality of life values.

We want a society and an environment that will allow people, as
individuals, to work out their own quality of life. But there is a
heavy responsibility on individuals to make the best of their
situation and to take personal actions to achieve quality in living.
We should be cautious about making the inference that a person living
in what most people would assess as favorable conditions will
experience high quality; or, conversely, that a person living in what
most would assess as poor conditions will experience low quality. Yet,
policy makers frequently make such inferences (when they report that
per capita income has risen, or fallen, for example).

It is easy to recognize that a decent life requires minimal provision
of food, shelter, and clothing, and that society bears an obligation
to provide at least that minimum. In most developed countries those
minima have been achieved for nearly everyone. But how do we decide
what society should do to enhance quality of life beyond providing
the minima? For example, we often hear outcry of someone, or group,
whose economic situation may be diminished in order to preserve some
aspect of the ecosystem: they complain that they will starve if they
cannot keep their job (and continue to injure the ecosystem). We need
some clear thinking about values and what it means to live a good life
in order to arrive at appropriate policies.

It is clear that we must find the good life in some other way than
continuing to grow in material consumption. Finding a good life is
more a search of our own minds than it is search of a shopping mall.

 Goods that are not Zero-Sum

Economists characterize most goods exchanged in the markets as 'zero
sum.' Because I have it, you cannot have it -- that is zero sum. Our
conditioning toward material consumption inclines us to think of all
enjoyment as zero sum. Actually, many of the most satisfying and
fulfilling things in life are enhanced when shared.

Another lifestyle, favored by many, emphasizes fulfillment in
interpersonal relations. These people love to socialize with friends
and relatives. Rewarding companionships with friends is not difficult
to find and most of these people feel quite fulfilled. Most
importantly, the lifestyle is not zero-sum, is not highly consuming
of goods, does not waste scarce resources, and does not injure the
environment. If we slowed down our frantic production pace, demanded
less and consumed less, we would have more time for enjoying
companionship; chances are, we also would enhance our quality of life.

Enjoyment of nature could also emerge as another lifestyle; it is not
consumed in the same way as restaurant meals, autos, or tickets to
seats in a basketball game, and thus is not zero-sum. Normally, my
enjoyment of nature does not detract form your enjoyment, but, nature
can be overrun and destroyed by too many people. Having to contend
with a crowded beach, or bumper-to-bumper traffic heading for a
national park, or elbow-to-elbow fishing in a trout pool is not a
fulfilling experience. Nature protection and beautification is a
fulfilling activity that many people can join in, derive satisfaction
from, and strengthen rather than diminish by their sharing. Urgent
joint action also is needed to obtain and maintain such vital natural
elements as clean air, water, and soils. Cutting back on consumption
would help a lot, but collective political action to assure
environmental protection is also imperative.

Learning is another pleasurable and fulfilling activity that is
developed rather than diminished by sharing. Philosophical
understanding, especially, is deepened by interpersonal discourse.
Cultivation of the mind has been emphasized in many cultural
traditions and surely would be an important activity to emphasize in
a sustainable society. Deepening one's understanding requires time
and periods of quiet contemplation; ironically, these are scarce
goods that many frantically busy people today fervently wish they
could have. If we slowed down, produced less, and consumed less,
perhaps we could find more quiet times for learning and for deepening
our understanding.

Enjoyment in creating, and appreciating literature, music, and art,
similarly are not diminished if shared and should be emphasized in a
sustainable society. Instead of life being bleak and cold when we are
forced to slow down, it could be a flourishing period of creativity
and learning.

Play is another pleasurable and fulfilling activity that typically
consumes few resources and need not damage nature. I do not speak of
energy consuming and nature destroying thrill contests such as
off-road vehicle racing; they are incompatible with a good society.
Nor do I speak of sporting events with large crowds of spectators;
they should be seen as a branch of the entertainment industry.
Rather, the sustainable society should emphasize widespread
participation by nearly everyone in games that bring pleasure and are
not wasteful or destructive; there certainly is sufficient variety to
serve almost any taste. Games requiring vigorous activity not only to
pass the time pleasurably but also nurture good health.

Self governance also is non-zero-sum in the sense that everyone
benefits when better laws are passed or when better community
programs are undertaken. (Many elections are zero-sum when the winner
takes all.) Self governance does require interest, concern and time
from people. Persons caught up in the rat race for money often claim
that they are too busy to participate. However, if life were
restructured to give less emphasis to getting rich and consuming,
people could more likely see the relevance of their participation for
a better life; furthermore, schedules would be more flexible, allowing
people to take the time for political affairs -- it could become a
natural and expected aspect of everyday life.

 Voluntary Simplicity

Duane Elgin's book Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way of Life That Is
Outwardly Simple, Inwardly Rich is a much deeper examination of
philosophy, lifestyles, social forces, and revolutionary changes than
one might expect from the title. His central thesis is that people
voluntary choose a life of simplicity because it is richer than
modern consuming lifestyles. To live voluntarily means to live more
deliberately, intentionally, purposefully, and to do so consciously.
'We cannot be deliberate when we are not being present. Therefore,
crucial to acting in a voluntary manner is being aware of ourselves
as we move through life.'[1]

He distinguishes 'embedded consciousness' from 'self-reflective
consciousness.' Embedded consciousness is our normal or waking
consciousness so embedded within a stream of inner-fantasy dialogue
that little attention can be paid to the moment-to-moment
experiencing of ourselves. Self-reflective consciousness is a more
advanced level of awareness in which we are continuously and
consciously 'tasting' our experience of ourselves. It is 'marked by
the progressive and balanced development of the ability to be
simultaneously concentrated (with a precise and delicate attention to
the details of life) and mindful (with a panoramic appreciation of the
totality of life).'[2]

Living more consciously has several enabling qualities: (i) Being
more consciously attentive to our moment-to-moment experiences
enhances our capacity to see things as they really are; (ii) Living
more consciously enables us to respond more quickly to subtle
feedback that something is amiss, so that we can move with greater
speed towards correction action; (iii) When we are conscious of our
habitual patterns of thought and behavior, we are less bound by them
and can have greater choice in how we will respond; and (iv) Living
more consciously promotes an ecological orientation toward all of
life; we sense the subtle through profound connectedness of all life
more directly. These four enabling qualities are not trivial
enhancements of human capacity; they are essential to our further
evolution and to our survival.

Self-reflective consciousness can open the door to a much larger
journey in which our 'self' is gradually but profoundly transformed.
The inner and outer person gradually merge into one continuous flow
of experience.

To live with simplicity is not ascetic but rather an aesthetic
simplicity because it is consciously chosen; in doing so we unburden
our lives to live more lightly, cleanly, and aerodynamically. Each
person chooses a pattern or level of consumption to fit with grace
and integrity into the practical art of daily living on this planet.
We must learn the difference between those material circumstances
that support our lives and those that constrict our lives. Conscious
simplicity is not self-denying but life-affirming.

Simplicity is not turning away from progress; it is crucial to
progress. It should not be equated with isolation and withdrawal from
the world; most who choose this way of life build a personal network
of people who share a similar intention. It also should not be
equated with living in a rural setting; it is a 'make the most of
wherever we are' movement. Voluntary simplicity would evolve both a
material and the conscious aspects of life in balance with each other
-- allowing each aspect to infuse and inform the other.

We can get from where we are now to this new, yet old, way of
defining the good life by assisting each other in our social
learning. When it becomes obvious hat material consumption does not
lead to the good life, or that growth in material consumption is not
possible, it will be somewhat easier for us to make this
transformation to a new way of thinking. Life without material growth
very likely will be better than the frantic chase after money and
goods that now blights our lives and the ecosphere: it surely will be
more sustainable.

Living a good life in a sustainable society could be a realization of
the Greek concept of Paideia -- the lifelong, transformation of our
own person as an art form. It is ridiculous to characterize life with
fewer material goods as 'freezing in the dark,' as some environmental
critics have painted it. It would be a very different way of life:
more contemplative, less frantic; more serene, less thrilling;
valuing co-operation and love more, valuing competition and winning
less; with more personal involvement, less being a spectator; more
tuned to nature, less tuned to machines. Changes this sweeping may
take several generations to come about. Many people have already
begun the journey and their learning can help others find the way.
Necessity may well hasten our relearning.

 Footnotes

[1] Duane Elgin, Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way of Life that is
Outwardly Simple, Inwardly Rich (New York: William Morrow, 1981), 32.

[2] Ibid., 151.

(c) Rafael Pangilinan 2010

E-mail: rafael_pangilinan1002@yahoo.com

-=-

II. PHILOSOPHY OF MANAGEMENT: TWO CALLS FOR PAPERS

SPECIAL ISSUE: PHILOSOPHICAL LESSONS FROM THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

Proposals with abstracts Due by Friday 25 June 2010

Guest Editors: Martin Kelly, Waikato Management School, New Zealand
and Arnis Vilks, HHL Leipzig, Germany.

 Rationale

The global financial crisis has created a broader crisis of
confidence in the capitalist system and, in particular, in
economists' ability to predict, and politicians' ability to prevent
major economic crises. Learning from the crisis in connection with a
philosophical perspective is crucial from a philosophy on management
point of view. Much of the understanding of the Enron tragedy, and
others, has come not during the tragedies but from retrospective,
informed considerations of the events. In this issue we wish to
develop an understanding of the financial crisis, and exploration of
prevailing approaches to business, at the level of underlying
philosophy in order to determine what changes might be apposite. For
instance, it might be argued that the financial crisis has taught us
some new lessons in business ethics, but it might also be held that
it has only highlighted what had been observed and argued long before
the crisis -- for example by Ghoshal in 2005. It might also be argued
that the crisis suggests the need to reconsider epistemological
presuppositions of management such as predictability, or that the
relative roles of transnational corporations and nation-states
require a paradigm change in political philosophy.

Contributions are invited which may be critical of, or sympathetic
to, those involved in the crisis. Articles may address the subject
from a holistic perspective or deal with specific areas.

 Scope

Papers are called for which offer philosophical analyses of how the
crisis evolved, how it has affected business practices, and how
practices might change in response to the crisis. Areas to be
addressed could include:

. The professional responsibilities of managers and professional
advisors
. The ethical practice of organisational management versus auditors,
in accounting
. Trust
. Risk management
. Executive compensation
. Profit maximisation and shareholder value
. CSR and stakeholder management
. Banking
. Mortgage administration
. Hedge funds, derivatives and special purpose vehicles
. Governmental regulation and rating agencies
. Crisis management
. Management educators and education

The above list is purely illustrative. Any submission that addresses
aspects of the crisis from a philosophical view of business practices
will be considered. (By philosophical, we mean thoroughgoing,
concentrated philosophical treatment of the chosen topic, beyond e.g.
critical perspectives.)

 Contributions

Contributors are asked to send paper proposals with abstracts to the
address below. Where the proposal is provisionally accepted, the
contributor will be asked to submit a full paper draft for
peer-review. Proposed contributions will be welcome in the form of:

. Papers
. Short opinion pieces (500-2,000 words)
. Case studies
. Interviews
. Literature reviews

Contributions -- other than opinion pieces -- should be 4-7,000 words
in length.

 Timetable

Proposals with abstracts: due by Friday 25 June 2010
Provisional acceptances: notified by Thursday 22 July
Drafts for refereeing: due by Friday 28 October
Referee reports: Friday 15 January 2011
Final drafts: due by Wednesday 17 March
Publication: Summer 2011

Please send proposals, abstracts and any enquiries to:

Martin Kelly
Waikato Management School
Hamilton 3240
New Zealand

Email: Kelly@waikato.ac.nz

or

Arnis Vilks
HHL -- Leipzig Graduate School of Management Jahnallee 59
04109 Leipzig
Germany

Email: vilks@hhl.de

We prefer submissions by email attachment (Word or RTF format).

If submitting on paper, please send three copies, anonymised for
double-blind reviewing, typed double-spaced on one side of the paper
with a floppy disk (in Word format if possible).

Please provide a separate brief resume of the author(s) and full
address for correspondence including phone, fax and email.

Full author guidelines for paper layout and referencing are at:

http://www.managementphilosophers.com/Getting%20Published.htm

 Guest Editors

 Martin Kelly

Dr. Martin Kelly is a fellow of the Association of Chartered
Certified Accountants. He is also a Chartered Accountant, New
Zealand. He has published in excess of 100 academic works. He teaches
courses in 'Organisation & Society' at both the final year
undergraduate level and postgraduate level. These courses critically
assess the use and abuse of Accounting in the contemporary business
world. Martin has taught on MBA courses at: Waikato University,
Massey University, Leuven University (Belgium), Liverpool University
(UK), Lanzhou University (China). His current research interests are:
Philosophy of Management, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, CSR
and Business Ethics.

 Arnis Vilks

Dr. Arnis Vilks is Professor of Economics at the Leipzig Graduate
School of Management, where he served as Dean from 2000 to 2005. He
has done research mainly on philosophical and methodological issues
in Economic Theory, such as aggregation theory, the notion of
equilibrium, or logical and epistemic foundations of Game Theory. His
recent research addresses more qualitative areas in the interface
between Management, Economics, Political Science, and Philosophy. He
has taught or held visiting positions at the Universities of Hamburg,
Cologne, Cambridge, Riga, and Stanford, and he spent two recent
periods of sabbatical leave at Waikato Management School in New
Zealand.

--

SPECIAL ISSUE: A UNIQUE ROLE FOR A 'PHILOSOPHY OF MANAGEMENT'?

Proposals with abstracts due by: Wednesday 30 June 2010

Guest Editors: Stephen Sheard (Bradford University) and Mark Dibben
(Monash University)

 Rationale

There has long been an interest in the role philosophy can play in
enriching the intellectual basis of management both in theory and in
practice. However, this has increasingly tended to be embodied in the
sub-disciplines described as 'critical management' or 'postmodern
organization studies' or 'organization theory'. A criticism of this
otherwise sometimes excellent work might be that it rarely deals with
the thinking of its chosen philosophers in depth; rather it perhaps
creates a discourse that is otherwise describable as 'sound-bite
philosophy', a quasi-philosophical literary criticism set within a
sub-disciplinary axiology in which breadth of philosophical citation
is deemed a better indication of expertise than in-depth treatment
and thoroughgoing application. In addition, rarely does this work
consider the application of philosophy to the practice of management.

In contrast, applied philosophy which is a approach potentially made
coherent by a 'philosophy of management' rather than one of
'organization' as previously represented within the Organizational
theory traditions, might move beyond broad-sweeping commentary or
ostensibly coherent argument based around the appropriation of
apparently similar thinking from numerous philosophers, to the
wholehearted attempt at unpacking management phenomena by the
systematic and in-depth application of the work of a particular
philosopher; the potential for error in interpretation is reduced. In
this sense, therefore, the rich history of philosophical enquiry
remains largely untapped. It is perhaps an aim of a 'philosophy of
management' to encompass and absorb both philosophical and managerial
traditions.

In the light of this position, this call asks for a scrutiny of the
inter-relationship of organizational theory relative to the area of a
'philosophy of management'. The call asks for a close debate of what
is distinctive about a philosophical approach to management and
whether this ought to be distinctive to the extant approaches
currently represented by Critical Management Studies (CMS) and
Organization Studies (OS). Thereby the call asks for a consideration
of the evolving role of philosophy relative to the study of
management, and how a philosophy of management can conceptualize
itself relative to its close cousin in organizational theory.

It is important to note that the call is meant to appeal to those
utilizing sources from a range of philosophical traditions and in
some sense, may involve comparison of competing claims relative to
the formulation of a particular niche for a 'philosophy of
management'. Authors ought to also consider at any point utilising
the particular ideas of individual philosophers and exemplifying
those ideas relative to either organizational theory and/ or
management practice. The call will strive to maintain a balance
between papers which engage both theory and practice but the call
does invite reflection at a meta-theoretical level regardless of the
approaches taken.

Within the scope of the call are the following areas but the call
ought not to be delimited by them:

a) The unique form of a management philosophy?

b) Philosophy of Management and its political aspects/ interaction
with CMS, etc.

c) Thematic consideration of different modes of philosophical
approach relative to a philosophy of management

d) Topics of a marginal or eccentric nature within OS and how they
maybe characterised in a debate as to the emergence of a philosophy
of management.

In more detail, the topics are:

a) If one considers the original form of description of our journal:
Reason in Practice. It established two unique identifiers -- 'reason'
and 'practice'. In some sense, if these two features were to consider
be the singular aspects which differentiated the Journal of
Philosophy of Management, why ought that to be the case? Gellner
(1992) suggests reason has a transcendent aspect, Griseri (2002)
suggests the necessity of practice relative to the problematic nature
of truth claims in management knowledge. How might the combination of
such elements provide a type of unique identifier for a journal? Is
it possible to argue that in any sense these approaches might be
limited? Is this is necessary debate which ought to continue within
any serious application of philosophy to management, and if so -- why?

b) Can a philosophy of management avoid the charge of being in some
sense tied or conjoined to a political order which carers little for
either philosophy or truth? This might be an opportunity to show the
value of a particular approach towards a specific philosopher or
philosophical tradition which establishes the value of an approach
typified as a 'philosophy of management' as opposed to a further
theory of organization. What is the distinction (if one exists)
between these two; other than semantic? Is there a sense in which
approaches from philosophy are able to stand above contemporary
trends as exemplified in areas or approaches such as CMS? Might
philosophical approaches towards management be critical of the
critical without being reactionary? This also leads in turn to the
question as to whether a 'philosophy of management' may be critical
of management. Is a philosophy of management necessarily satellite or
host to management?

c) The popularization of the local narrative as opposed to more
grandiose designs of a meta-narrative perspective, suggested by some
features of Postmodernist thought, have tended to resist the idea of
approaches to organization theory as having a 'truth claim'. Consider
the aspect of evolving typological or theoretical modes of
clarification of knowledge approaches towards management theories
(see for instance Schipper, 2005), or approaches which might dwell on
particular philosophical themes e.g. scepticism (Grayling, 2008); can
particular approaches towards philosophical enquiry which utilise
such typologies or 'grand debates' exact purchase on the
instantiation of a philosophical truth claim within social studies?
Is this the particular ground to which a philosophy of management
might aspire? How might this sit with issues embedded in the
continental traditions critical of nomethetic knowledge and or such
approaches which emphasise the limitations of rational enquiry? How
might the adaptation of approaches from different traditions of
philosophical enquiry cope with these aspects and be evaluated
comparatively?

d) Is there scope for the deployment of a controversy over the role
of philosophy in marginal or eccentric areas related to sub-divisions
normally not felt to be the province of management philosophy -- such
as post-colonialism? A particular example is the controversy related
to the work of Edward Said on Orientalism (Irwin, 2007). Are
organization studies a putative forum for the working out of the
influences of this or other areas of thematic interest without the
same degree of stricture felt in the 'home areas' of deployment? Can
particular areas of 'quiet interest' like the liminal or mythological
be made relevant towards an organizational philosophy in the way that
they may not be relevant to a managerial philosophy? This might ask
for a fuller consideration of issues of the 'other' or difference
outside the usual contexts of application within OS or CMS and might
offer particular scope for studies which addressed aspects of
management practice as leitmotif of particular issues.

These suggestions are not meant to be exhaustive but to give an
indication of the types of approach desired.

 References

Gellner, E, (1992), Reason and Culture: New Perspectives on the Past,
Blackwell.

Grayling, A, C, (2008), Scepticism and the Possibility of Knowledge,
Continuum US.

Griseri, P, (2002), Management Knowledge: A Critical View, Palgrave.
Irwin, S, (2007), For Lust of Knowing: the Orientalists and their
enemies, Penguin, 2007.

Schipper, F, (2005), 'Reflective Knowledge Management: Some
considerations,' in Thinking Organization, (edited by Stephen
Linstead and Alison Linstead), Routledge.

 Contributions

Proposed contributions will be welcome in the form of

- Papers (6-8000 words; exceptionally longer subject to editorial
discretion)

- Short Essays or Case Studies, or Review Essays of material, or
literature reviews (4-6000 words)

The editors will be happy to consider other approaches. Please write
in the first instance with an outline of your approach.

The policy of the journal is to publish articles that are clear and
comprehensible -- to the educated practitioner as much as to the
academic reader. We encourage all contributors to aim at as clear and
lucid a style of written presentation as their material allows.

 Timetable

Proposals with abstracts: due by 30 June
Provisional acceptances: notified by 30 July
Drafts for refereeing: due by 30 January 2011
Referee reports and decisions: by 31 March
Final drafts: due by 30 May
Publication: Winter 2011

Please send proposals, papers and abstracts and any enquiries to: Dr
Stephen Sheard (Bradford University)

Email: SGSheard@aol.com

Submissions should be sent by email attachment (Word or RTF format).
Please provide a separate brief resume of the author(s) and full
address for correspondence including phone, fax and email.

Full author guidelines for paper layout and referencing are at:
http://www.managementphilosophers.com/Getting%20Published.htm

 Guest Editors

 Stephen Sheard

Dr Stephen Sheard, (Bradford University), has written theory papers
and book chapters in areas of organisational theory and its
relationship to philosophical ideas -- chiefly in the areas of
continental philosophy. He has published articles in E:Co
(Emergence), Philosophy of Management, and Management and
Organizational History, and chapters in several books. Before
lecturing at Bradford, he taught at Liverpool Hope, Middlesex and
Kent Universities. At Kent he did his PhD in areas related to
complexity theory and its earlier forms of transfer towards
organisational studies; graduating in 1999. He is interested in
exploring grey areas of philosophical application to organisational
theorisation.

 Mark Dibben

Dr Mark R. Dibben is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Management at Monash University, Australia and has served on the
Editorial Board of Philosophy of Management. He is Visiting Scholar
at the Centre for Process Studies in the School of Theology at
Claremont Graduate University, California and is Executive Director
of the International Process Network (IPN;
http://www.processnetwork.org), the international body charged by its
member organisations with enabling process research around the globe.
His research focuses on what he terms Applied Process Thought, namely
work that moves beyond broad-sweeping process commentary, to the
wholehearted attempt at examining scientific and social scientific
phenomena by the systematic application of process metaphysics. He
has published extensively on this topic; his most recent publication
is Applied Process Thought, Vol.2 (Frankfurt/ Lancaster: Ontos
Verlag), an edited collection with Rebecca Newton, of articles by
leading process philosophers, scientists and social scientists on
topics ranging from biology, physics and theology to sociology,
ecological economics and education. His own doctoral research used
process metaphysics to explore the nature of Interpersonal Trust in
the Entrepreneurial Venture (Macmillan, 2000).

--

 Philosophy of Management

Founded in 2001, Philosophy of Management is the established forum
for philosophically informed thinking about management in theory and
practice. It seeks to define and develop the field of philosophy of
management. The Journal is read by thinkers, scholars, teachers,
consultants and practitioners in 20 countries. It is for philosophers
working in all traditions, for management thinkers concerned with the
philosophical foundations and validity of their subject and
practising managers seeking to engage with the philosophical issues
raised by what they believe and do. Contributors have included some
of the world's leading philosophers, management scholars, consultants
and managers. It is independent, international, refereed and appears
three times each year.

Full details at http://www.managementphilosophers.com

PLEASE FORWARD THIS NOTE TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED.

Nigel Laurie
Founding and Consulting Editor
Philosophy of Management
PO Box 217
Oxted
Surrey RH8 8AJ
UK

Tel +44 (0)1883 715419

-=-

III. PUBLIC LECTURE: 'SOME TYPES OF POLITICAL REASONING' BY ALASDAIR
MACINTYRE

Alasdair MacIntyre will give a public lecture on:

     'Some Types of Political Reasoning'

At 5 pm on Monday 7th June, at 16 Goulston Street, London E1.

The lecture will be followed by discussion and a reception.
Attendance is free.

For a flyer, click here:

http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/depts/lgir/casep/news-and-events/
macintyre-lecture.cfm

To book a place, please email: l.hall@londonmet.ac.uk

Professor MacIntyre will become Senior Research Fellow in CASEP, the
Centre for Contemporary Aristotelian Studies in Ethics and Politics,
at London Metropolitan University, on 1st July 2010. This will mark
his official return to the UK, after over 40 years in American
universities. At CASEP, he will conduct research into common goods
and political reasoning. A result of this will be his first book of
specifically political philosophy.

 Centre for Contemporary Aristotelian Studies in Ethics & Politics

From http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/casep/

Aristotelianism is characterized by a teleological conception of the
human good and human capabilities, by an ethics of the virtues, and
by a politics of the common good. The Centre for Contemporary
Aristotelian Studies in Ethics & Politics (CASEP) aims to promote
research informed by, and into, such Aristotelian principles.

Besides our own conferences, lectures, seminars and research
projects, we intend this website to be a portal to work undertaken
elsewhere. For published work, please consult the research resources
homepage. We hope you find the website useful, and that you'll be
able to participate in some of our events.

Contact us at: casep@londonmet.ac.uk

[top]