IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/humman/v1y2016i1d10.1007_s41463-016-0002-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is ‘Humanistic’ About Humanistic Management?

Author

Listed:
  • Claus Dierksmeier

    (Weltethos-Institut (Universität Tübingen))

Abstract

Presently it is en vogue to search and research business models heedful to concerns of social, moral, and ecological sustainability. On the view here defended, however, we ought not to strive for piecemeal corrections but for a thoroughgoing paradigm change of the predominant economic theories and practices in favor of a genuinely ‘humanistic management.’ This very call for humanistic management serves as an introduction into this paper (section 1). The article then lays out a concept of humanistic management in three methodologically distinct steps, description – ascription – prescription, before addressing potential challenges to the approach of humanistic management and, finally, pointing out some of its practical implications. The article hence proceeds as follows: From a critique of the reductionist description of economic agency given in conventional economics (2), the paper moves on to the ascription of freedom and responsibility by and through human actors (3), which appears essential for any attempt at re-integrating moral prescriptions into economics and, by extension, management theory (4). The resultant, dignity-centered humanistic management conception is then defended against challenges from postmodern authors and defendants of ‘deep ecology’ (5). Afterward, the article presents some normative postulates for management practice (6); last, the main findings of the paper are summarized (7).

Suggested Citation

  • Claus Dierksmeier, 2016. "What is ‘Humanistic’ About Humanistic Management?," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 9-32, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:humman:v:1:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s41463-016-0002-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s41463-016-0002-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41463-016-0002-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41463-016-0002-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Werther, William Jr. & Chandler, David, 2005. "Strategic corporate social responsibility as global brand insurance," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 317-324.
    2. Andrew Mearman, 2011. "Who Do Heterodox Economists Think They Are?," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(2), pages 480-510, April.
    3. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "The Corporate Objective Revisited," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 350-363, June.
    4. Ulrich,Peter, 2008. "Integrative Economic Ethics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521877961.
    5. David Dequech, 2007. "Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 279-302.
    6. Michael Pirson & Paul Lawrence, 2010. "Humanism in Business – Towards a Paradigm Shift?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 553-565, June.
    7. Claus Dierksmeier, 2011. "The Freedom–Responsibility Nexus in Management Philosophy and Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 263-283, June.
    8. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”: A Reply," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 370-371, June.
    9. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
    10. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
    11. David Colander & Richard Holt & Barkley Rosser, 2004. "The changing face of mainstream economics," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 485-499.
    12. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    13. Lex Donaldson & James H. Davis, 1991. "Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 16(1), pages 49-64, June.
    14. David Colander, 2018. "The Death Of Neoclassical Economics," Chapters, in: How Economics Should Be Done, chapter 5, pages 46-62, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. R. Edward Freeman & Andrew C. Wicks & Bidhan Parmar, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 364-369, June.
    16. McCloskey,Deirdre N., 1994. "Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521436038.
    17. R. Freeman & Kirsten Martin & Bidhan Parmar, 2007. "Stakeholder Capitalism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 303-314, September.
    18. Dierksmeier, Claus & Celano, Anthony, 2012. "Thomas Aquinas on Justice as a Global Virtue in Business," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 247-272, April.
    19. McCloskey,Deirdre N., 1994. "Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521434751.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christine Unterrainer & Hans Jeppe Jeppesen & Thomas Faurholt Jønsson, 2017. "Distributed Leadership Agency and Its Relationship to Individual Autonomy and Occupational Self-Efficacy: a Two Wave-Mediation Study in Denmark," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 57-81, October.
    2. Claudius Bachmann & Laura Sasse & Andre Habisch, 2018. "Applying the Practical Wisdom Lenses in Decision-Making: An Integrative Approach to Humanistic Management," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 125-150, February.
    3. Christopher Gohl, 2018. "Weltethos for Business: Building Shared Ground for a Better World," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 161-186, December.
    4. Giulio Maspero, 2020. "Humanistic Management for Laypeople: the Relational Approach," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 25-38, July.
    5. Bruno Dyck, 2020. "The Integral Common Good: Implications for Melé’s Seven Key Practices of Humanistic Management," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 7-23, July.
    6. Abigail B. Schneider & Daniel P. Justin, 2020. "Educating for an Inclusive Economy: Cultivating Relationality Through International Immersion," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 133-151, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arzi Adbi & Ajay Bhaskarabhatla & Chirantan Chatterjee, 2020. "Stakeholder Orientation and Market Impact: Evidence from India," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 479-496, January.
    2. Michael Pirson, 2019. "A Humanistic Perspective for Management Theory: Protecting Dignity and Promoting Well-Being," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 39-57, September.
    3. Robert Garnett, 2006. "Paradigms and pluralism in heterodox economics," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 521-546.
    4. Jose Luis Retolaza & Ricardo Aguado & Leire Alcaniz, 2019. "Stakeholder Theory Through the Lenses of Catholic Social Thought," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(4), pages 969-980, July.
    5. Rachelle Belinga & Blanche Segrestin, 2019. "A conceptual mapping of the logics of institutional investors' corporate governance responsibilities: The case for "custodian" investor stewardship," Post-Print hal-02167819, HAL.
    6. Andrew Yuengert, 2006. "Model selection and multiple research goals: The case of rational addiction," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 77-96.
    7. Claus Dierksmeier, 2020. "From Jensen to Jensen: Mechanistic Management Education or Humanistic Management Learning?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 73-87, September.
    8. Deirdre Nansen McCloskey, 2019. "Lachmann practiced humanomics, beyond the dogma of behaviorism," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 32(1), pages 47-61, March.
    9. Bidhan L. Parmar & Adrian Keevil & Andrew C. Wicks, 2019. "People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees’ Need Satisfaction at Work," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 13-33, January.
    10. Pessali, Huascar & Berger, Bruno, 2010. "A teoria da perspectiva e as mudanças de preferência no mainstream: um prospecto lakatoseano [Prospect theory and preference change in the mainstream of economics: a Lakatosian prospect]," MPRA Paper 26104, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Witold J. Henisz & Sinziana Dorobantu & Lite J. Nartey, 2014. "Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1727-1748, December.
    12. Jan Kultys, 2016. "Controversies About Agency Theory As Theoretical Basis For Corporate Governance," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 7(4), pages 613-634, December.
    13. Amitava Krishna Dutt, 2015. "Uncertainty, power, institutions, and crisis: implications for economic analysis and the future of capitalism," Review of Keynesian Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, vol. 3(1), pages 9-28, January.
    14. Michele Di Maio, 2013. "Are Mainstream and Heterodox Economists Different? An Empirical Analysis," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(5), pages 1315-1348, November.
    15. Adem LEVENT, 2016. "Power, Market and Techno-Structure in John Kenneth Galbraith’s Thought," Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, KSP Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 214-218, June.
    16. Michael Pirson, 2020. "A Humanistic Narrative for Responsible Management Learning: An Ontological Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 775-793, April.
    17. Sheila C. Dow, 2012. "Variety of Methodological Approach in Economics," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Foundations for New Economic Thinking, chapter 13, pages 210-230, Palgrave Macmillan.
    18. Garrod, Brian & Fyall, Alan & Leask, Anna & Reid, Elaine, 2012. "Engaging residents as stakeholders of the visitor attraction," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1159-1173.
    19. Robert Garnett, 2011. "Pluralism, Academic Freedom, and Heterodox Economics," Working Papers 201107, Texas Christian University, Department of Economics.
    20. Claus Dierksmeier, 2011. "The Freedom–Responsibility Nexus in Management Philosophy and Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 263-283, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:humman:v:1:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s41463-016-0002-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.