Abstract
This article will offer an alternative understanding of managerial decision-making drawing from Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason rather than simply Being and Nothingness. I will begin with a brief explanation of Sartre’s account of freedom in Being and Nothingness. I will then show in the second section how Andrew West uses Sartre’s conception of radical freedom from Being and Nothingness for a managerial decision-making model. In the third section, I will explore a more robust account of freedom from Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason. I will attempt to show that freedom is not simply a matter of choosing (or not choosing) to perform an action, but entails external constraints—including other people. Finally, I will provide the implications of this account of freedom for managerial decision-making. I will show that it’s unreasonable to place full responsibility and/or blame on managers given their constraints. This does not absolve them from responsibility, but better accounts for the way in which we ought to hold them responsible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Even though this example may appear obviously wrong, it’s not that simple. It goes without saying that one can be fired for many reasons and if she does not comply with this order, she will eventually be fired. Moreover, depending on the organization, it may be nearly impossible for her to contest the firing.
Do not confuse the language of ‘human reality’ with ‘human nature’ since Sartre rejects the latter, meanwhile, using the former for explanatory purposes.
Even though Robert Solomon is writing on Sartrean business ethics, he is a virtue ethicist using aspects of Sartre to illustrate the importance of responsibility.
I will include all six steps to West’s Sartrean business decision-making model in the fourth section. At that point, we will have the opportunity to examine it in light of Sartre’s later works.
It's worth noting that Monahan is writing specifically on Hegelian recognition, but it applies in the same way as Sartre's reciprocity. See Heter 2006, ch. 4 and 8.
References
Agarwal, J., & Malloy, D. C. (2000). The role of existentialism in ethical business decision-making. Business Ethics: A European Review, 9(3), 143–154.
Anderson, T. C. (1993). Sartre’s two ethics: From authenticity to integral humanity. Chicago: Open Court.
Ashman, I., & Winstanley, D. (2006). Business ethics and existentialism. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(3), 218–233.
Catalano, J. S. (1986). A commentary on Jean-Paul Sartre’s critique of dialectical reason: Volume 1: Theory of practical ensembles. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Detmer, D. (2008). Sartre explained: From bad faith to authenticity. Chicago: Open Court.
Donaldson, T. (1996). Values in tension: Ethics away from home. Harvard Business Review, 74, 48–62.
Freeman, R. E. (2006). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In K. Gibson (Ed.), Business ethics: People, profits and the planet (pp. 211–221). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Freeman, R. E., et al. (1996). Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective revisited. Organizational Science, 15(3), 346–369.
Friedman, M. (2006). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In K. Gibson (Ed.), Business ethics: People, profits and the planet (pp. 206–211). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Heter, T. S. (2006). Sartre’s ethics of engagement: Authenticity to civic virtue. New York: Continuum.
Jackson, K. (2005). Towards authenticity: A Sartrean perspective on business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 307–325.
Mahon, J. F., & McGowan, R. A. (1991). Searching for the common good: A process-oriented approach. Business Horizons, 34, 79–86.
Monahan, M. (2006). Recognition beyond struggle: On a liberatory account of hegelian recognition. Social Theory and Practice, 32(3), 389–414.
Monahan, M. (2008). Sartre’s critique of dialectical reason and the inevitability of violence: Human freedom in the milieu of scarcity. Sartre Studies International, 14(2), 48–70.
O’Brien, T. (2009). Reconsidering the common good in a business context. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 25–37.
Santoni, R. E. (2003). Sartre on violence: Curiously ambivalent. University Park: The Pennsylvania University Press.
Sartre, J.-P. (1963). Search for a Method (H. E. Barnes, Trans.). New York: Random House.
Sartre, J.-P. (1984). Being and nothingness. New York: Washington Square Press.
Sartre, J.-P. (2004). Critique of Dialectical Reason: Volume1 Theory of Practical Ensembles (A. Sheridan-Smith, Trans.). New York: Verso.
Sison, A. (2007). Toward a common good theory of the firm: The tasubinsa case. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 471–480.
Solomon, R. C. (2008). Are we victims of circumstances? Hegel and jean-paul sartre on corporate responsibility and bad faith. In M. Painter-Morland & P. Werhane (Eds.), Cutting-edge issues in business ethics (pp. 9–20). New York: Springer.
Wagner-Tsukamoto, S. (2007). Moral agency, profits and the firm: Economic revisions to the Friedman theorem. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 209–220.
West, A. (2008). Sartrean existential and ethical decision-making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 81, 15–25.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This paper has improved exponentially from its initial submission. I would also like to thank Michael Monahan for introducing me to Sartre’s later works, in addition to his helpful feedback on the initial draft. Finally, I am very grateful for Kevin Gibson’s guidance and Torrey Kleist’s encouragement throughout the process.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kleist, C. Using Sartre’s Critique of Dialectical Reason for Managerial Decision-Making. J Bus Ethics 112, 341–352 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1266-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1266-x