Principal Theory and Principle Theory: Ethical Governance from the Follower’s Perspective

Journal of Business Ethics 66 (2-3):207-223 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Organizational governance has historically focused around the perspective of principals and managers and has traditionally pursued the goal of maximizing owner wealth. This paper suggests that organizational governance can profitably be viewed from the ethical perspective of organizational followers - employees of the organization to whom important ethical duties are also owed. We present two perspectives of organizational governance: Principal Theory that suggests that organizational owners and managers can often be ethically opportunistic and take advantage of employees who serve them and Principle Theory that focuses on guiding principles that are sometimes taken too far in organizations. In introducing these two new organizational governance perspectives, we offer insights into the value of rethinking ethical duties owed to organizational followers.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,063

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ethics & organizations.Martin Parker (ed.) - 1998 - Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
84 (#246,697)

6 months
13 (#242,190)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Cam Caldwell
Dixie College

References found in this work

Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective.Norman E. Bowie - 1982 - New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Business & society: ethics and stakeholder management.Archie B. Carroll - 2002 - Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Pub./Thomson Learning. Edited by Ann K. Buchholtz.
The ethics of management.LaRue Tone Hosmer - 1987 - Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
What Stakeholder Theory is Not.Andrew C. Wicks - 2003 - Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (4):479-502.

View all 18 references / Add more references