When we deal with complex things, like human subjects or organizations, we deal with identity – that which makes a person or an organization what it is and distinguishes him/her/it from other persons or organizations, a kind of “self”. Our identity determines how we think about and interact with others. It will be argued in this chapter that the self is constituted relationally. Moreover, when we are in the realm of the self, we are always already in the realm of (...) engaging with and mediating differences – the realm of ethics. The position which will be developed argues that approaching identity as a complex system allows us to resist thinking of identity as an easily identifiable and static entity. Identity is always being constituted within a complex and contingent world, where we have to make choices based on contingent values rather than on universal knowledge or the outcome of rational calculations. As a result, we have to keep in mind that our daily practices always already have an ethical component, and our decisions need to be continually evaluated and re-evaluated in the light of our (and others’) varying identities. (shrink)

As an alternative to attempts to impose models of personal moral development (e.g. Kohlberg) upon organisations we propose an evolutionary model of managing ethics in organisations. The Modes of Managing Morality Model that we suggest, is based on an analysis that explains why business organisations tend to move from less complex modes of managing ethics to more complex modes thereof. Furthermore, it also identifies the dominant ethics management strategies that characterise each of the stages. It is done in a way (...) that avoids claiming that the more advanced modes of managing ethics necessarily represent moral development by business organisations. Instead of claiming the organisations develop morally, we claim that organisations move through an evolutionary process of improving their sophistication in managing ethical performance. (shrink)