JRP_94592

Jepson Center

Welcome to the Gonzaga University School of Business Administration’s Knowledge Center.

Vulnerable Values Argument for the Professionalization of Business Management – Dr. Brian Steverson

Market events of the past few years have resurrected long unheeded calls for the professionalization of the occupation of business manager, not in terms of increased technical proficiency, but in terms of a renewed vigor to shape the practice of management and the education of those who will fill its ranks along the lines of the “ideal of service” which characterizes socially established professions like law and medicine.  In this paper I argue that the push to professionalize business management can be grounded in an ISCT (Integrative Social Contracts Theory) treatment of the “vulnerable values” argument which itself has served as a source for the professionalization of medicine and law.  Additionally, I offer a sketch of an argument that once business managers are considered to be members of a profession, we can begin to develop an account of “business malpractice” which would, when it occurs, represent an ethical violation of the “public pledge” that members of all professions make to serve the broader good of society.

 

Publisher        Contact Author

Vulnerable Values Argument for the Professionalization of Business Management – Dr. Brian Steverson

Vulnerable Values Argument for the Professionalization of Business Management – Dr. Brian Steverson Market events of the past few years have resurrected …

People, Corporations, Economic Decisions, and Political Speech – Dr. Gerhard Barone and Dr. Kent Hickman

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC eliminates restrictions on the ability of corporations to make independent expenditures for speech that is electioneering in nature. Crucial in the opinions of both the majority and the dissent in the case is whether the First Amendment’s freedom of speech protection should be applied equally to corporations as it is to natural persons. On this topic, the majority concludes that “the First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity.” (558 U.S. at 31) On the contrary, the dissenting opinion quotes prior Court decisions in concluding that “the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation.” (558 U.S. at 2) The special characteristics of corporations that the dissenting opinion lists in support of this conclusion include: limited liability; perpetual life; separation of ownership and control; and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets (558 U.S. at 75, among others). In this paper, we highlight an additional characteristic, rooted in economic theory, that we believe adds to the distinction between persons and for-profit corporations. Specifically, we argue that individuals strive to maximize utility and for-profit corporations strive to maximize wealth and that this fundamental distinction and its consequences should have been considered by the Court.

Publishers       Contact Authors:   Dr. Gerhard Barone    Dr. Kent Hickman

People, Corporations, Economic Decisions, and Political Speech – Dr. Gerhard Barone and Dr. Kent Hickman

People, Corporations, Economic Decisions, and Political Speech – Dr. Gerhard Barone and Dr. Kent Hickman The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United …