Philosophers have not paid much attention to the impact of remote work on the nature of work and the workplace. The overall aim of this paper is to contribute to further debate over the value of remote work by focusing on one important dimension of it – the effect on collegial relationships.I distinguish two types of collegial relationships. On the one hand, there are what I call “Kantian collegial relationships”, which have been outlined in a recent account by Betzler & (...) Löschke. These are colleagues who acknowledge and respect each other as equals, and provide relationship goods in a fair and distributive manner. On the other hand, there are what I call “collegial friendships”. In contrast to Kantian colleagues, collegial friends are emotionally supportive and show appreciation for each other for who they are, not just because they are equals. Both types of collegial relationship must be taken into consideration if we want to fully understand why we value our colleagues.I then show that there are reasons to believe that remote work will have a chilling effect on collegial friendships. Remote workers must interact online, which undermines forms of self-disclosure that are necessary for intimate relationships to form, like collegial friendship. Conversely, I suggest that remote work, for exactly the same reasons, will have a positive effect on Kantian collegial relationships. The proliferation of remote work forces us to consider whether this tradeoff is acceptable. (shrink)

This paper aims to explore challenges of the Aristotelian friendship (philia) in multicultural society and in the specific industrial and organizational contexts. Data was collected from forty-eight participant interviews with managers and employees of four mining companies in Indonesia with twelve informants from each company, both management and employees. The paper found that the virtue of friendship within the mining companies has several drawbacks when an imbalance of power exists between managers and employees. This paper suggests that to understand virtue (...) of friendship in a multi-ethnic and multicultural context, it is essential to ground the conceptual framework in both Aristotle’s views and specific cultural sensitivities, as only then can the full story be grasped. Thus, this paper contributes to bring insights into an under-explored, complex and, at times, paradoxical context, explaining that Aristotelian virtue ethics encounters cultural aspects and a specific context of human relationships which make challenges for business organizations to be virtuous. More importantly, this paper also paves the path towards further discussions and studies on virtue ethics to set a conceptual framework in both virtue ethics and specific cultural sensitivities for business ethics. Practically, this paper provides a valuable insight for business organizations especially business leaders, human resources (HR) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) practitioners, as it offers practice on how to avoid moral lapses in their day-to-day working relationships inside the organization as well as their relationships with the community. (shrink)

An increasing number of philosophers have suggested that businesses be conceived on the model of friendship. The paper sketches two different models of friendship – Aristotelian and Kantian. This paper examines whether and in what sense these models are appropriate to business. Care must be taken to specify which type of friendship is meant before treating businesses as friendships. Whether businesses can be friends with one another and with their stakeholders depends crucially upon the type of friendship involved.

Behaviorism is consistent with the assumptions of perfect competition, with the homo economicus model, and with a form of ethics that enshrines market-based notions of utility, justice, and rights and encourages rational maximizing. Economics and business courses foster this deficient form of ethics, assuming an overriding desire for money, which, according to MacIntyre and Aristotle, crowds out the associative virtues. These beliefs, often associated with Taylor and Friedman, lead to such practices as incentive compensation, which would be effective only if (...) employees were homines economici and thus rational in the sense of knowing how to satisfy whatever desires they have. Against Davidson’s view that psychology cannot be a natural science, Aristotle believes that there can be a teleological, if not exact, science of behavior. Aristotle believes that emotions and objectives may be rational or irrational. But rationality—phronesis, practical wisdom—is not a matter of applying algorithms. Doris questions whether character generates the first premises of an agent’s practical syllogisms, while Haidt has argued that we often act on emotions rather than on the basis of the reasons that we claim motivate us. Aristotle agrees that many people are not virtuous and that weakness of the will is a common occurrence, and he agrees that emotion drives actions. But if you are virtuous, your emotions and desires support your rationality. Aristotle gives us reason to reject the notion that people are homines economici and to treat them as rational deliberators, in part by creating an appropriate culture. The claim that it is in the nature of human beings to deliberate rationally is in part aspirational, but also in part scientific—in Aristotle’s modest sense. (shrink)

It is argued here that business firms can and do provide an incubator that enables the Aristotelian category of friendships of advantage to develop into friendships of virtue. This contradicts other literature that views acquaintances of utility as the business norm, and expresses pessimism concerning more advanced virtuous development of friendship within the business firm. It is argued here, however, that this virtuous development is integral to the Kantian social aim of pursuing a moral community, an aim which declares the (...) appropriate moral motivation for business, and that certainly should incorporate a role for developing virtuous relations as a component of that pursuit. An atmosphere that encourages the development of relations of virtue is feasible, exists in real business, and is optimal for pursuit of moral business communities. (shrink)