Humanistic Entrepreneurship: An Approach to Virtue-based...

Humanistic Entrepreneurship:Humanistic Entrepreneurship:Humanistic Entrepreneurship:Humanistic Entrepreneurship:Humanistic Entrepreneurship:An Approach to Virtue-based EnterpriseAn Approach to Virtue-based EnterpriseAn Approach to Virtue-based EnterpriseAn Approach to Virtue-based EnterpriseAn Approach to Virtue-based EnterpriseBenito L. TBenito L. TBenito L. TBenito L. TBenito L. TeehankeeeehankeeeehankeeeehankeeeehankeeDe La Salle [email protected]

In a country wracked by grinding poverty such as the Philippines, entrepreneurs can be potentagents of economic prosperity. But what is less emphasized in many accounts of entrepreneurshipis the approach of some entrepreneurs to building enterprises which not merely deliver financialresults but also promote the holistic development of the members of the enterprise. This approachcan be termed “humanistic entrepreneurship.” The paper examines conceptualizations ofhumanistic entrepreneurship based on management, leadership, organizational culture and ethicsliterature. Illustrative cases are presented which show that humanistic entrepreneurship is basedon virtues, principles and skills of entrepreneurial founders. A conceptual framework for futureresearch in humanistic entrepreneurship is proposed.

Keywords: Entrepreneurship, humanistic entrepreneurship, leadership, ethics

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This paper has two motivations: one related toentrepreneurship and business practice in thePhilippines; and the other to the role of ethics inentrepreneurship theory. On the aspect of practice,it will be recalled that the 21st century opened witha series of highly publicized business scandalsreported in the news. Invariably the scandalsinvolved major ethical and legal breaches on thepart of prominent American companies, such asEnron and WorldCom, and auditing firms such asArthur Andersen.

While regulatory bodies in the US and thePhilippines have scrambled to institute reforms inmonitoring standards for public corporations,fundamental questions are being raised about therole of business in society. Can business be trusted

Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 8:1 (2008), pp. 89-110

© 2008 De La Salle University-Manila, Philippines

to behave in the interest of investors and the publicat large? What kinds of companies should beestablished which can promote trustworthy andsocially responsive business behavior? What is therole of entrepreneurship in building trustworthycompanies? These questions are made more urgentby the high levels of income inequality that continueto plague countries like the Philippines, despitehealthy growth in the business sector (Teehankee,2008). This paper attempts to address the need forbuilding trustworthy companies to start as early asduring the entrepreneurial stage. This is consistent withthe current attention being given to entrepreneursin media and in public recognition programs suchas the Ernst & Young Top Entrepreneurs of theYear Award (Ernst & Young, 2008).

From a theoretical perspective, this paperattempts to address a gap in entrepreneurship

90 VOL. 8 NO. 1ASIA-PACIFIC SOCIAL SCIENCE REVIEW

research especially in the area of ethics. Much ofthe research in entrepreneurship has beendescriptive and positivist. Research regardingentrepreneurship has focused, to a significantdegree, on its value-creating outcomes due to thepersonal characteristics of entrepreneurs, such asself-confidence, originality, people orientation,task-result orientation, future orientation and risk-taking (Meredith, Nelson & Neck, as cited inChavez, 2000). This approach has been echoedin local research as well (Chavez, 2000;Divinagracia, 1993; Edralin, 1998). Suchdescriptive and positivist research has basicallyasked such questions as: “Who are effectiveentrepreneurs?” and “What factors lead to effectiveentrepreneurship?”

While newer entrepreneurship research haslooked at other aspects of the phenomenon, suchas the exploitation of opportunities (Shane &Venkataraman, 2000) and the entrepreneur’srelationship with the environment (Bruyat & Julien,2000), ethical aspects seem to be relativelyunexplored. This is regrettable since building ethicalorganizations can be legitimately included as anentrepreneurial act in the sense of Schumpeter’s“new ways to organize” (Hwang & Powell, 2005,p. 202). Viewed in this broad sense, innovativelyorganizing a business in order to achieve higher-order ethical goals may be construed as a legitimateentrepreneurial achievement.

Within the last two decades, ethical and socialresponsibility considerations have been pervadingother major areas in business research. Forexample, in the case of corporate socialresponsibility, the link between a company’s so-called social performance and its financialperformance has been extensively investigated. In53% of studies reviewed by Margolis and Walsh(2001), results pointed to a positive relationshipbetween corporate social performance andfinancial performance.

Meanwhile, the study of entrepreneurial ethicsis much less developed with studies few and farbetween (Bucar & Hisrich, 2001; Longenecker,McKinney & Moore, 1988; Quinn, 1997). Withrespect to the few studies that have been done,

inconsistent findings have emerged. Longeneckeret al. (1988), in comparing ethical attitudes ofentrepreneurs and managers, detected a slightlygreater tendency for entrepreneurs to approvemorally questionable business behavior. Bucar andHisrich (2001), on the other hand, hypothesizedand confirmed opposite findings: entrepreneurswere slightly more critical of ethically dubioussituations than the comparison group of managers.In a similar vein, Teal and Carroll (1999) reportedthat “when existing theories in the areas of businessethics, entrepreneurship, and psychology areconsidered concurrently, they have suggested thatentrepreneurs as a group, may exhibit higher levelsof moral reasoning skill” (p. 238). Further researchcan surface any number of moderating variableswhich may account for these different findings.

This paper aims to achieve the following:

1) Situate the role of entrepreneurial businessin the socio-economic development goalsof a developing country such as thePhilippines;

2) Discuss the role of ethics and ethicalleadership among entrepreneurs indeveloping value-creating and sociallyresponsive business;

3) Present a classification framework forlevels of entrepreneurial humanism;

4) Discuss illustrative cases of humanisticentrepreneurship;

5) Propose a conceptual framework forresearch on humanistic entrepreneurship.

THE COUNTRY’S SOCIO-ECONOMICSTATE AND THE NATIONAL ROLEOF ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS

In October 2007, the National Statistics Office(NSO) in the Philippines released the results ofthe triennial Family Income and Expenditure Survey(FIES). The findings of the survey are sobering.While total annual family income grew in constant2003 prices from P2,437 billion to P2,478 billion,average annual family income actually decreased

TEEHANKEE, B.L. 91HUMANISTIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP

from P148,000 to P142,000 (National StatisticsOffice, 2008a) As to income distribution, thesurvey indicated a slight improvement in the Ginicoefficient for the period. However, the NSObanner for the FIES summary report highlights thisdeplorable distribution situation: “HIGHESTINCOME EARNERS CONTINUE TOCONTRIBUTE MORE THAN ONE-THIRD TOTHE INCOME OF ALL FAMILIES”. Indeed, the10th decile of families earned P1,082 billion in2006, a full 36% of the total family income ofP3,006 billion earned by all Filipino families forthat year.

Meanwhile, financial indicators from thecountry’s corporate sector have been quiteimpressive in recent years. BizNews Asia (2006)reported that the 10 most profitable corporationsof 2005 together netted P219 billion compared toP86 billion in 2004–an increase of more than 150percent. The Philippine Stock Exchange (F. Lim,personal communication, March 16, 2007)reported that the stock market return in 2006 asmeasured by the PSEi was 42.3 percent, animpressive increase from the 14.9 percent increasethe index registered in 2005. The PSE alsoreported that total market capitalization grew frombarely P3 trillion in 2000 to more than P7 trillionby the end of 2006.

The recent years’ rosy corporate numberscombine with media reportage to romanticizecorporate wealth in the public imagination. Timemagazine’s cover of February 23, 2004, showedHenry Sy and his children with the caption “TheFamilies that Own Asia”, implying, almostsubliminally, that the corporate wealthy can indeed“own” a country or even a continent. The recentannouncement by Forbes magazine (AgenceFrance-Presse, 2008) of the country’s wealthiest,namely, Lucio Tan ($1.5 billion) and Henry Sy($1.4 billion), shows the link between corporatecontrol and tremendous levels of personal wealth.

The fact that periods of strong growth in thetop levels of the business and financial sectors donot correlate with improving average family incomesfor Filipinos is a cause for concern. After all,business is given a special role in Philippine society

for the promotion of every citizen’s welfare. ThePhilippine Constitution, in fact, refers to the“common good” half a dozen times. In particular,Article XII, Section 6 on National Economy andPatrimony states:

The use of property bears a social function,and all economic agents shall contribute tothe common good. Individuals and privategroups, including corporations, cooperatives,and similar collective organizations, shall havethe right to own, establish, and operateeconomic enterprises, subject to the duty ofthe State to promote distributive justice andto intervene when the common good sodemands. (De Leon, 2002, p. 365)

Thus, while the right to private property ofcorporate shareholders is fully recognized, sucha right is not absolute. It is always subordinateto the mandate for all economic entities, suchas corporations, to support the development ofall and to give to others their just share of thefruits of production. In particular, Article XIIISection 1on Social Justice and Human Rightsstates:

The Congress shall give highest priority to theenactment of measures that protect andenhance the right of all the people to humandignity, reduce social, economic, and politicalinequalities, and remove cultural inequities byequitably diffusing wealth and political powerfor the common good.

To this end, the State shall regulate theacquisition, ownership, use, and disposition ofproperty and its increments. (De Leon, 2002,p. 390)

The explanatory note to the 1980 CorporationCode reinforces the distributive role of business,particularly that of corporations, when it states thatthe:

… Code seeks to establish a new concept ofbusiness corporations so that they are notmerely entities established for private gain buteffective partners of the National Government


in spreading the benefits of capitalism for thesocial and economic development of thenation. (De Leon, 2001, p. 183)

Thus, it is clearly the intention of the framers of theConstitution and the national government thatbusiness growth contribute to the upliftment of alland not merely to the increasing wealth of thealready richest families.

But does business practice encourage theupliftment of all? For some time now, theDepartment of Labor and Employment (DOLE) hasbeen reporting the rising trend in contractualization,with the proportion of non-regular workers in the totalemployment rising from 20.51% in 1991 to 28.2%in 1997 (Department of Labor and Employment,2007). Similarly, DOLE reports that violations oflabor laws, in general, and minimum wage laws, inparticular, remain rampant in the country, averagingaround 50% and 25%, respectively (as cited inAsian Development Bank, 2005a, p. 55).

There is much to be desired with respect to therole that business has been playing in the Philippinesocio-economic arena. Entrepreneurial businesses,because of their ability to innovate with respect tobusiness opportunities and organizationalarrangements (Schumpeter, as cited in Hwang &Powell, 2005), have a particularly potent role toplay in addressing the current gap between theideal and actual role of business in the country. Highon the list of people whose developmentbusinesses should support and who should sharein the fruits of production are their own employees.

The Philippine income distribution situationalready described by the NSO-FIES above hasremained troublesome in recent years, as shownby government reports for the MillenniumDevelopment Goals or the MDGs (NationalEconomic Development Authority, 2005). Whilethe national poverty rate hovers around 30%, manyregions in the country have much higher rates withsome reaching as high as 55%. The consistenteconomic growth rates experienced by the countryin the last decade of 5% and above, peaking atmore than 7% in 2007 (National Statistics Office,2008b) have not translated to addressing poverty.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND BUSINESSAS VALUE CREATION

In the movie Pretty Woman (Marshall &Ziskin, 1990), Edward Lewis (played by RichardGere), is a millionaire corporate raider who getsromantically involved with Vivian Ward (played byJulia Roberts), a prostitute. After finding out aboutEdward’s company was in the business of buyingcompanies, breaking them up and selling the piecesfor a profit, Vivian, in all shocked innocenceexclaims, “So you don’t actually make anything.”Edward’s realization of the truth of Vivian’sstatement was a turning point for him. He realizedthat while he made plenty of money, he producedno value at all.

The purpose of business has beenconceptualized as the creation of value and that ofentrepreneurship as the creation of new value.Hisrich and Peters (1998) defined entrepreneurshipas “the process of creating something new withvalue by devoting the necessary time and effort,assuming the accompanying financial, psychic, andsocial risks, and receiving the resulting rewards ofmonetary and personal satisfaction andindependence” (p. 9). Other authors have similarlyconceptualized entrepreneurship as the creation ofnew value (Bruyat & Julien, 2000) through theintroduction of a new organization’s delivery of aproduct or a service. Value is traditionallyconceptualized as the production of future incomestreams (cash profits) to the business created bythe entrepreneur.

Much of finance and economic theory measuresvalue through cash returns and price as determinedby a free market. This has facilitated the creationof sophisticated mathematical and analytic modelsfor helping businesses make decisions (Bodie &Merton, 2000). Yet some economists in recentdecades have begun to acknowledge that value isonly partially measured by price or financial return.Anderson (1995), for example, argues quiteforcefully that:

treating something as a commodity istantamount to asserting that its value can be


expressed in a price… but with respect tomany goods, this assertion is both false andat odds with our ordinary evaluativejudgments and practices. The proper way tovalue these goods – love, admiration, honor,commitment – is incompatible with assigningthem a price. …The problem is not simplythat markets tend to undervalue [these] goods– to assign them too low a price – but tomisvalue them – to assign them a price at alland thereby to attribute to them a kind ofworth that is incompatible with their true value(p. 192).

An offshoot of defining value in terms of cashflow and price is the measurement of businessperformance principally by profit. This perspectiveis severely limited from the point of view of buildingbusiness institutions. A study of so-called visionarycompanies by Collins and Porras (1994) showedthat the successful companies they studied whichsurvived through the most trying circumstances,such as IBM, Merck, Sony, 3M, and Walt Disney,evaluated themselves beyond their profitability. Theauthors argued that for these companies:

Profitability is a necessary condition forexistence and a means to more importantends, but it is not the end in itself for many ofthe visionary companies. Profit is like oxygen,food, water, and blood for the body; they arenot the point of life, but without them, thereis no life (p. 55).

Given the powerful impact of business in societyin general and the myriad social concerns whichhave been associated with business activity, theclassical conception of business andentrepreneurship as mainly profit and cash-producing activities have serious limitations. First,it neglects the non-economic impacts of businessactivity. Second, it does not consider issues ofsustainability of profits and growth especially withrespect to resources, community impact, andenvironmental concerns. Third, it prioritizes returnsto owners out of proportion to their contributionand rights.

Business has many non-economic effects. Amajor one is its effect on the level of trustingrelationships created in society. In the case ofEnron, it was clear that the company’s behaviorwas seen as a major breach in trustworthiness. Thusthe impact on the sentiments of countless peopletowards business in general was seriously harmed.This was reflected in the general slow down of thecapital markets in the US after the scandal madethe news. Similarly, the Philippine BW Resourcesscandal, with its allegations of insider trading andPresidential intervention, caused the stock indexto drop significantly and threatened to cause theshutdown of the stock exchange (Crampton,2000).

While value as economic returns is necessaryfor a viable entrepreneurial venture, it appears notto be sufficient in ensuring that the businessestablished is a sustainable economic entity and,more importantly, that it will contribute positivelyto the values structure of society. Thus, value isbetter measured by a company’s contributionthrough socially beneficial products and servicesand other outcomes, such as employment, whichare aligned with positive social and human values.

ETHICS, VALUES AND BUSINESS

If business value is to be aligned with positivesocial values, the issue of which values to adoptarises. Are there generally accepted values?Although moral relativism is still a popular stanceto take, it is easy to see that certain values such asreciprocity and honesty are critically needed forbusinesses to even continue to exist. Every businesstransaction, after all, is a contract, and the honoringof contracts is fundamental to the idea of business.Business people need to at least assume that theother person will fulfill his end of the bargain.

Catholic Social Teaching (Curran, 2002;Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2004)gives guidance on the values that should guideentrepreneurs and business. John Paul II (1991),in the encyclical Centesimus annus, wrote:


A person who produces something other thanfor his own use generally does so in orderthat others may use it after they have paid ajust price mutually agreed upon through freebargaining. It is precisely the ability toforesee both the needs of others and thecombinations of productive factors mostadapted to satisfying those needs thatconstitutes [an] … important source of wealthin modern society. (#32)

The above quote seen within its proper context,John Paul II, in fact, encouraged the pursuit ofprofit. He explained the proper context for profitin meeting human needs and serving society:

The church acknowledges the legitimate role ofprofit as an indication that a business is functioningwell. When a firm makes a profit, this means thatproductive factors have been properly employedand corresponding human needs have been dulysatisfied. But profitability is not the only indicatorof a firm’s condition. It is possible for the financialaccounts to be in order, and yet for the people —who make up the firm’s most valuable asset — tobe humiliated and their dignity offended. Besidesbeing morally inadmissible, this will eventually havenegative repercussions on the firm’s economicefficiency. In fact, the purpose of a business firm isnot simply to make a profit, but such purpose is tobe found in its very existence as a community ofpersons who in various ways constantly endeavorto satisfy their basic needs, and who form aparticular group at the service of the whole ofsociety. Profit is a regulator of the life of a business,but it is not the only one; other human and moralfactors must also be considered which, in the longterm, are at least equally important for the life of abusiness (Centesimus annus #35).

The nuanced role of profit in business and itsanchoring in broader human, social and moralconsiderations in Catholic Social Teaching is astark contrast to the often uni-dimensionaleconomic portrayal of business in academicliterature.

The supposed international divergence of valueshas been challenged by international groups startingwith the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

promulgated by the United Nations in 1948 (DallaCosta, 1998). Dalla Costa documented thegrowing international consensus on universal humanvalues across religions and cultures, even if localvariations abound. He observed that the principleof reciprocity, for example, occurs in most majorreligions. Dalla Costa also noted common themesin the pronouncements of various internationalethics advocacy groups, namely, the Parliament ofthe World’s Religions, The Interfaith Declaration,Adhoc Inter-Faith Working Group and the CauxPrinciples. He qualitatively extracted five ethicalimperatives that ran through all fourpronouncements, which are the following: respectlife, be fair, be honest, strive for justice, and honorthe environment. There is, therefore, a clearconvergence in basic human values globally.

Donaldson and Dunfee (1999), as part of theirIntegrative Social Contract Theory (ISCT) havecalled such universal values hypernorms (p. 49).They argue that since business can only thrive inan atmosphere of trust produced by trustworthybehavior of business participants, everyone has toplay within reasonable norms. These norms haveto be guided by universal values.

There is a need to broaden the conception ofentrepreneurship beyond economic returns andefficiency. A conception of entrepreneurship whichnot only acknowledges the economic imperativebut also accommodates the contribution of abusiness to the promotion of priority social valuesand hypernorms is needed. This need is partlydriven by the current limits to growth imposed onbusiness by increasing global competition,environmental constraints, and regulatory regimes(Clark & Clegg, 1998). Mostly, however, thisimperative is driven by the need to make businessmore cognizant of the human and social needs ofvarious stakeholders.

Unfortunately, business education has tendedto emphasize individual competitive interest overethics, values and the common good (Daly &Cobb, 1994). For example, Neal M. Stoughton,a finance professor from the University ofCalifornia-Irvine argued for the extremeposition that a course on ethics should not be


included in the business curriculum, but thatethical considerations should merely give wayto free market principles. He said: “The wholenot ion of business is about prof i t andcompetition and trying to defeat your opponent.Ethics implies that there’s some social good atstake. If you worry about social good, you’llend up being clobbered by the competition”(Mangan, 2002). This emphasis on individualcompetition is clearly a result of having completefaith in the teachings of mainstream economictheory (Friedman, 1970).

In sharp contrast to Stoughton’s position, thevalidity of mainstream economic theory has beenques t ioned by a number of prominenteconomists including Joseph Stiglitz andAmartya Sen, both winners of the Nobel Prize.Stiglitz (2001), for example, cautioned againsttoo much belief in the so-called “invisible hand”which enables self-interest in a free market totranslate to the common good. He explained that“the hand may be invisible [because] it is simplynot there – or at least that if it is there, it ispalsied” (p. 473). He recognized the severelimitations in traditional economic explanations ofthe behavior of people and economies more tothe point when he stated:

[I knew that] something was wrong –seriously wrong – with the competitiveequilibrium models which represented theprevailing paradigm when we went tograduate school. It seemed to say thatunemployment didn’t exist, that issues ofefficiency and equity could be neatlyseparated, so that economists could neatlyset aside problems of inequality and povertyas they went about their business ofdes igning more e f f ic ien t economicsystems. (p. 476)

Amartya Sen, for his part, likens the rationaleconomic man (homo economicus) proposed bymainstream economic theory to a “social moron”because in his quest for self-interest, he completelyignores his duties to others (as cited in Lutz, 1999,p. 157).

LEVELS OF ETHICAL THINKINGAMONG INDIVIDUALS

The psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg didpioneering research on how individuals developethical judgment in the process of maturing. Hedescribed three main levels of what he called“cognitive moral development” (as cited in Treviño& Nelson, 1999) which refers to how people tendto change their basis for deciding right and wrongat each level of their development. Each level issubdivided into two stages which make a total ofsix stages that a person goes through in maturingethically. In Level I, or the pre-conventional level,people are mainly self-interested; they simplypursue pleasure and avoid pain or punishment.What is considered right at this level is mainly whatmaximizes personal benefit and minimizes personalpain. One can clearly see that self-interestedrational economic man is only at this first/initial levelof moral development.

In Level II, or the conventional level, peoplebecome more interested in group or social rules.What is considered right at this level is what meetsthe expectations of one’s group and society. InLevel III, or the principled level, people becomemore interested in deciding right and wrong on thebasis of reflection and careful reasoning. What isconsidered right at this level is what a person canrationally defend, based on principles developedthrough thorough, calm and carefully reasonedanalysis, free from pure self-interest and externalpressure. This is similar to what Shaw and Barry(2001) refer to as:

considered moral beliefs [which] are thosewe hold only after we have made aconscientious effort (a) to attain maximumconceptual clarity, (b) to acquire all relevantinformation, (c) to think about the belief andits implications rationally, (d) impartially, andwith the benefit of reflection, (e) coolly. (p.26)

Kohlberg pointed out that as individuals mature,they go through the different levels in strictsequence; nevertheless, most people reach only the


conventional level. In this view, entrepreneursshould strive to reach the principled level in theirethical development. It is at this level that anentrepreneur begins to escape the limits of pureself-interest or social pressure in deciding on theright thing to do. This is the level where theentrepreneur truly becomes trustworthy to thepublic because his decisions are based onprinciples which can be fairly applied to all, evenat personal risk or loss to himself. This capturesour general notion of the “principled” person.Principles are, therefore, a key ingredient inentrepreneurial ethics.

Reidenbach and Robin (1991) extended thecognitive moral development framework to thecorporation as a whole. They proposed that acorporation likewise develops through stages ofethical maturity as its culture internalizes principledethics. The stages, (with their main motivationspresented below within parentheses), wereadapted by Kooskora (2006). These are asfollows: Amoral (maximum profit at all costs);Legalistic (follows the letter of the law,legal=ethical) ; Responsive (helps localcommunity, social responsibility if profitable);Emerging Ethical (balancing ethics and profit,has ethical artifacts); and Developed Ethical(principle-driven).

While ethical principles emphasizing rationalityand impartiality as discussed above dominateacademic literature on ethics, the role ofrelationships and affect – an ethics of care — hasbeen presented as equally important in businessethics as presented by women ethicists such asCarol Gilligan (as cited in Velasquez, 2006) whowas a student of Kohlberg. This ethical perspectiveargues that “the moral task is not to followuniversal and impartial moral principles, butinstead to attend and respond to the good ofparticular concrete persons with whom we arein a valuable and close relationship” (p. 182).An ethics of care also supports humanisticentrepreneurship in the sense that business ownersand managers are prompted to display concern,compassion, love and kindness towards workers(Marcic, 1997; Shelton, 1990).

THE ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONALLEADERSHIP AND CULTURE

As the now infamous Enron and WorldComscandals have shown, businesses which do notbehave morally can suffer tremendous loss of valueas they lose credibility with the public. Governmentattempts to improve the ethical behavior of businessthrough tougher rules, improved monitoring andstiffer penalties may help but it will not suffice.Moral behavior is guided by values and not rules.A Conference Board survey of corporate ethicsofficers (Taub, 2002, para. 6) stated that:

an absence of ethical leadership and a cultureof ‘anything goes as long as it makes a buck’will prevail over even the best training, codeof conduct, or hotline. …This emphasizes thecritical importance of building integrity intothe essence of the corporation.

So where does one begin to build such integrityinto a company? As the Conference Board surveyindicated, moral behavior is promoted by acompany’s culture.

Social psychologists have long noted that acompany’s culture is shaped early in the life of abusiness – during the entrepreneurial stage (Schein,1992). Strategic choices of entrepreneurial firmsare heavily influenced by the values and beliefs ofthe founders. Given sufficient time, the decisionsof the entrepreneurial leaders lay the foundation ofthe company’s organizational culture. Therefore,entrepreneurship at the outset should be alignedwith ethics to lay the foundation of a business thatwill continuously create value and promotetrustworthy behavior.

Entrepreneurs as company founders can shapethe ethical culture of a company in many ways (e.g.,personal attention to operational issues whichinvolve ethics, role modelling, training of members,rewards and promotion, etc.). Early on in his life,Henry Ford emphasized:

I don’t believe we should make such an awfulprofit on our cars. A reasonable profit is right,but not too much. I hold that it is better to sella large number of cars at a reasonably small


profit… I hold this because it enables a largernumber of people to buy and enjoy the use of acar and because it gives a larger number ofmen employment at good wages. Those arethe two aims I have in life. (Collins & Porras,1994, p. 53)

Is this a uniquely Western view? Maybe not.Collins and Porras (1994) also cited the case ofMasaru Ibuka, co-founder of Sony Corporation,who, long before the company had any positivecash flows, laid down the management guidelines,among others, for the company:

• We shall eliminate any unfair profit-seeking,persistently emphasize substantial andessential work, and not merely pursuegrowth.

• We shall place our main emphasis on ability,performance, and personal character sothat each individual can show the best inability and skill. (p. 50)

The core values of a company are laid downby its entrepreneurial founders. These values, ifplanted well, serve to act as internal guidance forcompany members for years to come. Theentrepreneur becomes a values-based leader(O’Toole, 1995). Schein (1992), however, pointedout an important requirement for culture to form in acompany; it is that cultural values must be seen bymembers to work, i.e., the company must do welland survive. Thus, emphasis on the entrepreneurs’values alone will not suffice. The company must berun profitably and viably as well. Otherwise, the valuesthemselves are seen to have failed and therefore donot take root.

Importantly, however, the establishment of anethical business culture is a work in progress forbusiness leaders. Corporations, in particular, arenotorious for engendering dysfunctional andirresponsible behavior among its members becauseof its highly bureaucratic and legally complexstructure (Bakan, 2005). Business founders must,therefore, take unusual care in institutionalizing thesuccession process for the company’s businessleaders to ensure the continuity of ethical values.

BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONSAND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

A specific ethical imperative of business andentrepreneurial organizations is the support forhuman development. The role of work in humandevelopment has been recognized by religious anddevelopment organizations. What follows willexplain the conception of work and humandevelopment from the perspective of the CatholicChurch and the International Labour Organization(ILO).

Work and its role in human dignity anddevelopment is a recurrent theme in Catholic SocialTeaching (Curran, 2002; Pontifical Council forJustice and Peace, 2004) which formally beganwith the encyclical Rerum novarum (RN) writtenby Pope Leo XIII in 1891 in response to thegrowing social inequality which accompanied theIndustrial Revolution (Leo XIII, 1891). On therecognizing the legitimacy of business,entrepreneurship and profit while honoring thecritical importance of dignity in work, the encyclicalstated:

working for gain is creditable, not shameful,to a man, since it enables him to earn anhonorable livelihood; but to misuse men asthough they were things in the pursuit of gain,or to value them solely for their physicalpowers - that is truly shameful and inhuman.(RN#20)

Alford and Naughton (2001) derived keyrequisite elements of human development from themore than a century-long documentary tradition ofCatholic Social Teachings (Curran, 2002; O’Brien& Shannon, 1992); and related them to concreteelements of the modern workplace. They specifiedseven aspects of integral human development,namely: bodily, cognitive, emotional, social, moral,aesthetic and spiritual. For example, theopportunity of employees to grow in confidenceas they take more responsibility and accept moreaccountability is an important indicator of emotionaldevelopment in the workplace. On the other hand,the opportunity for employees to employ their skills


and talents through appropriately designed workindicates workplace cognitive development.

Using these two examples of workplace humandevelopment alone reveals some problematicindications in Philippine workplaces. The trendtowards lower union memberships and increasingjob insecurity in Philippine companies do not seemto support emotional development (McKay,2006). Similarly, the emphasis on greaterstandardization and bureaucratization of workthrough franchising and reengineering do not seemto support cognitive development among workers.

Another important source of philosophicalthinking and practical standards for workplacehuman development is the International LabourOrganization (ILO), which has been a traditionalpromoter of worker’s rights and the decenttreatment of working people since 1919(International Labour Organization, n.d.-a).Recently, the ILO further refined its humandevelopment perspective through its concept ofdecent work. Juan Somavia, ILO’s Director-General, succinctly stated the organization’saspiration thus: “The primary goal of the ILO todayis to promote opportunities for women and men toobtain decent and productive work, in conditionsof freedom, equity, security and human dignity”(ILO, n.d.-b, para. 1). It further clarifies:

Decent work sums up the aspirations ofpeople in their working lives. It involvesopportunities for work that is productive anddelivers a fair income, security in theworkplace and social protection for families,better prospects for personal developmentand social integration, freedom for people toexpress their concerns, organize andparticipate in the decisions that affect theirlives and equality of opportunity and treatmentfor all women and men. (ILO n.d.-c, para. 1)

The Philippines is among eight countries that arepiloting the measurement of the level of decentwork. The Department of Labor has developedthe Philippine Labor Index, or the PLI (Bureau ofLabor and Employment Statistics, 2006; Institutefor Labor Studies, n.d.), which measures

opportunities for work, freedom of choice ofemployment, productive work, equity in work,security at work and representation at work. Initialdata for the PLI shows substantial shortfalls forthe various dimensions of decent work. The highestdeficit is in the area of representation at work. Thisis consistent with the disturbing trend incontractualization and lower union membershipsearlier mentioned.

LEVELS OF ENTREPRENEURIALHUMANISM

A number of frameworks on integral humandevelopment have been proposed (Cornwall &Naughton, 2003; Gasper, 2004; Vogt, 2005). Thispaper proposes a framework which builds onCornwall and Naughton (2003) but whichintegrates traditional management conceptions ofthe role of human beings in the workplace andconceptions based on Catholic Social Teaching,Aristotelian and Kantian ethics. The proposedframework provides motivational justification forwhy entrepreneurs should create workplacessupportive of integral human development (Alford& Naughton, 2001) and decent work (ILO, n.d.-a,.-b,.-c).

The framework categorizes companies intolevels based on management’s view of the principalrole of human beings in the company. The levelsare instrumentalism, collaboration and humanism.

The lowest level of entrepreneurial humanismis called “instrumentalism” or working throughpeople. This approach is based on the view ofhuman beings as principally inputs or resources tobe used in the production process. Aside from theintuitive appeal of this management view for manyentrepreneurs, it also has a long tradition ofacademic support. In elementary microeconomics,the production function is “defined as thespecification of the minimum input requirementsneeded to produce designated quantities of output,given available technology.” (Production function,2008, para. 1) The main resource inputs to aproduction function are generally defined to be


capital (K) and labor (L), and these are usuallyconceived of as interchangeable and to becontrolled by management as it deems fit: “In thelong run all factor inputs are variable at thediscretion of management” (Production function,2008, para. 10).

Another academic source for the instrumentalview of human beings is management theory. HenriFayol, acknowledged to be among the pioneers inmanagement theory, explained in his classicGeneral and Industrial Management publishedin 1916 that:

The responsibility of general management isto conduct the enterprise toward its objectiveby making optimum use of availableresources. It is the executive authority, itdraws up the plan of action, selects personnel,determines performance, ensures and controlsthe execution of all activities. (as cited inWren, 2005, p. 225)

Along essentially similar lines, Koontz andO’Donnell, in the 1950s, succinctly definedmanagement as “the function of getting things donethrough others” (as cited in Wren, 2005, p. 400).Thus, the entrepreneur who manages at theinstrumental level sees human beings mainly asresources for the achievement of a company’sgoals which will inevitably involve the maximizationof profit. At this level, the entrepreneur wouldassess the company’s effectiveness based on theachievement of goals and the efficiency with whichthese goals are achieved. Because of the concernfor efficiency, however, workers are mainly seenas expenses to be minimized; a view which canlead to depriving workers of security of tenure andliving wages when efficiency so demands.Obviously, opportunities for integral humandevelopment for employees are minimal under thistype of management.

The second level is called “collaboration” orworking with people and is characterized by theview of human beings as partners or team matesin the work process — to be led and involvedrather than simply to be directed by the use ofauthority.

Progressive management thinking beginningwith the human relations school of management,which was typified by Elton Mayo in the 1930s(Sheldrake, 2003) and culminating in the qualitycircle movement which swept from Japan to theUS in the 1980s (Evans, 2008), exhortedmanagement “to turn its attention to the social sideof behavior, to get people involved, and to therebycouple worker satisfaction and higher productivity”(Wren, 2005, p. 341). Because collaborationprovides opportunities for addressing the social,achievement and recognition needs of workers,collaboration-oriented entrepreneurship ishumanistically superior to instrumentalism. Theentrepreneur at this level of management evaluateseffectiveness not only through goal effectivenessand efficiency but also through the quality ofcollaborative and mutually satisfying relationshipsthat are engendered in the workplace. It must benoted, however, that, at this level, the focus oncollaboration is motivated mainly by its presumedpositive contribution to productivity.

The third and highest level in the framework issimply called “humanism” or working for people.At this level, the integral development ofemployees as human beings becomes an explicitgoal of the entrepreneur, higher in importancealthough supported by the traditional goals forfinancial viability. An explicit support for thehumanistic priority of labor over capital in businesscan be found in Catholic Social Teaching:

Labour has an intrinsic priority over capital.This principle directly concerns the processof production: in this process labour is alwaysa primary efficient cause, while capital, thewhole collection of means of production,remains a mere instrument or instrumentalcause. (Pontifical Council for Justice andPeace, 2004, p. 174)

Catholic Social Teaching further points out thatthe organization of business in order to harnesswork has a particularly important humanizing rolefor workers. First, it allows workers to contributeto the social good and to respond to the Biblicalcalling in Genesis to “be fruitful and multiply, and


fill the earth and subdue it” (Laborem exercens,1981, #4). Second, work builds human dignity:

Work is a good thing for man – a good thingfor his humanity – because through work mannot only transforms nature, adapting it to hisown needs, but he also achieves fulfilmentas a human being and indeed in a sensebecomes “more a human being.” (John PaulII, 1981, #9)

Mele (2003), consistent with Catholic SocialTeaching and Aristotle’s character-centered ethics(Nicomachean Ethics, 2008, para. 6), defineshumanistic management as “a management thatemphasizes the human condition and is oriented tothe development of human virtue, in all its forms,to its fullest extent.” (Mele, p. 79). In particular,humanistic management acknowledges that the fulldevelopment of people is possible only incommunity, i.e. an organizational setting wheremembers have a common bond due to cooperationaround shared goals and who relate with each otherin solidarity, not merely because of functionalinterdependence (Durkheim, as cited in Merton,1934; Leo XIII, 1891) but in a spirit of mutualcare (John Paul II, 1987; Naughton, 2006) andduty (Durkheim, as cited in Dunman, n.d.).

Management literature explicitly referring tohumanistic management as a concept is uncommon.Abraham Maslow (1998), however, argued thatthe essence of the idea in his writings on humanisticpsychology can be applied to the industrial settingwhen he explained:

Management theory can stress roughly twoproducts, two consequences: one is theeconomic productivity, the quality of theproducts, profit making, etc., the other is thehuman products, that is the psychologicalhealth of workers, their movement toward selfactualization, their increase in safety,belongingness, loyalty, etc. (p. 99)

The ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant wouldsimilarly justify humanistic management when it isaimed at the benefit of the human person through

what is referred to as the categorical imperative.According to the principle: “So act as to treathumanity, whether in thine own person or in that ofany other, in every case as an end withal, never asmeans only” (as cited in Solomon, 2004, p. 108).For Kant, it would be immoral to treat employeesmerely as instruments of production because oftheir innate dignity and rationality as human beings.He argued that all people should always be treatedas ends, i.e., in ways that respect their dignity andwhich appeal to their reason. Thus, Kantian ethicswould find it problematic for instrumental managersto solely determine the fates of employees as such.

Entrepreneurs who manage at the humanisticlevel would assess their effectiveness based on howwell they are able to create a community of workwhich uplifts the dignity and actualizes thedevelopment of employees. They would strive toensure the provision of decent work as conceivedby the ILO while continuously creatingopportunities for holistic character growth (virtue)among employees. Because humanisticentrepreneurs realize that they must keep thebusiness financially viable and rewarding in orderto nurture the work community in a sustainableway, they see no conflict between humanism andfinancial goals – the latter is in the service of theformer. Thus, workers are not only evaluated interms of what they produce but more importantlyaccording to what they become individually aspersons and collectively as members of anorganizational community (Cornwall & Naughton,2003).

CASE EXAMPLES OF HUMANISTICENTREPRENEURSHIP

The pursuit of business and entrepreneurshipfor explicitly humanistic purposes as a matter ofprinciple, alongside the more traditional concernfor financial returns, can be better understood whenobserved in practice. Management literaturecontains numerous accounts of companies whichprominently advocate decent treatment of workersalongside their pursuit of traditional financial goals


(Employers Confederation of the Philippines,2004; Ray & Rinzler, 1993). Some companies arecovered by individual publications including, in theUnited States, ServiceMaster (Maciariello, 2000;Pollard, 1997), Reell Precision Manufacturing(Wahlstedt, 2000), Herman-Miller (DePree,1989), Medtronic (George, 2003) and SouthwestAirlines (Freiberg&Freiberg,1996). Publicationson local company practitioners of humanisticmanagement are expectedly more rare but equallyinformative. These include United Laboratories(Ibañez, 2002) and PHINMA (Lim, 1996),Significantly, the importance given to people bythese US and Philippine companies was instilledearly on by their entrepreneurial founders.

For illustrative purposes, what follows is adescription of the humanistic practices of twoPhilippine entrepreneurial businesses: San JoseKitchen Cabinets and The Leather Collection.

San Jose Kitchen CabinetsSan Jose Kitchen Cabinets was established in

1982 as a furniture and sash maker. In 1987 thecompany started developing its kitchen cabinet lineand in 1994 the company fully shifted to the kitchencabinet business (San Jose Kitchen Cabinets, n.d.-a). While its factory and head office is located atthe People’s Technology Complex in Carmona,Cavite, the company operates its own distributionoutlets mostly located in malls and builder’scenters.

The humanistic elements in San Jose emanatesfrom the values of the founder and GeneralManager, Oscar Chan, and are encapsulated in thecompany’s vision, mission and core values (SanJose Kitchen Cabinets, n.d.-b). The company’sformal statements of direction and beliefs areunabashedly spiritual. This is quite rare incompanies but it has been observed even in UScompanies such as Reell Precision Manufacturing(Wahlstedt, 2000) or ServiceMaster (Maciariello,2000; Pollard, 1997).

The various aspects of human development asdiscussed by Alford and Naughton (2001) arementioned in San Jose’s official aspirationstatements (Appendix A); most notably the

cognitive (“intellectual”), bodily (“physical”), social(“love their neighbors”), aesthetic and the spiritual(“faith in God”) aspirations. And yet, the drive tocreate wealth through profitability is equally explicit.

The role of profit in San Jose is noteworthy,however. The company has adopted a 50% profit-sharing innovation as a feature of its peoplemanagement approach for the past 20 years. Chanexplains the system in the simplest terms possible:

All employees’ benefits are already part ofthe 50% employee’s share and therefore notanymore part of the company’s expenses.Also, before declaring the percentage sharefor the employees, the inflationary allowancedue to equity is first deducted. (San JoseKitchen Cabinets, n.d.-c)

Chan arrived at the 50% formula by conceivingof employees as full partners of capital. To ensuresustainability, however, his approach ensures thatthe value of capital does not diminish. This isaccomplished by returning to capital the rate ofinflation before computing the profit to be shared.Because normal benefits are considered part of theprofit-share, this translates to about 10% of profitshare during years of average sales usingconventional accounting. The share can be as highas 43% with high sales, however, even underconventional accounting for normal benefits.

The company’s practice is a concrete exampleof what Gates (2002) has termed inclusivecapitalism and is an active mechanism forspreading the benefits of capitalism as envisionedby Philippine laws. While the practice is completelyvoluntary on the company’s part, it is worth notingthat bills mandating 10% profit share for companieshave been repeatedly filed by a number ofrepresentatives in the past, including thencongressman, Benigno Aquino III . When hebecame a senator, Aquino announced his intentionto file a similar bill in the Senate (Rufino, 2007).

The Leather Collection (TLC)The company was set up in 1991 by husband

and wife Federico and Yolanda Sevilla as chairmanof the board and CEO, respectively. The company


specializes in genuine leather goods which are oftenused as corporate gifts, specifically briefcases,bags, and desk accessories (The LeatherCollection Company Brief, n.d.). The aspirationstatements of TLC (Appendix B) enunciates thecompany’s humanistic commitments to “a highlyempowered workforce”, “a work environmentconducive to growth”, sharing profits withemployees and striving to “be a vehicle for hanap-buhay in its fullness.” Yolanda Sevilla explains that“hanap-buhay”, which ordinarily translates to“livelihood”, refers within TLC to “the search forlife in its fullness” (Y. Sevilla, personalcommunication, July 25, 2006). She elaborates:

The Leather Collection really exists as avehicle for hanap-buhay, not just for myhusband and myself and my family but alsofor everybody who works here and works withus, … all our stakeholders. And so at the endof the day we’re approaching this … asstewards to whom much has been entrusted.Time, ours and others’, talents, ours andothers’, networks, resources, all of these webelieve have been entrusted to us. The otherone is we need … so we’re approaching it asstewards and we’re looking at these as havingbeen entrusted to us to enable us actually tolive life in its fullness. We saw that it workedfor us as a couple. We saw also that it workedfor the people who worked with us. And sothat concept has grown with us to the pointwhere that’s what we’re about now.

TLC’s commitment to helping its employeesgrow and develop is evidenced by its approach tocontinuing employee training. All employees, evenentry level ones, are encouraged to pursue trainingin more advanced skills to enable them to beassigned more complex work. The goal is for allemployees to be multi-skilled. This skill base hashelped the company deal with stiff low costcompetition from Chinese imports. The companyhas responded by pursuing more differentiated andinnovative designs and high margin export markets.The management knew that competing on cost withChinese imports would compromise the company’s

ability to meet its living wage commitments to itsworkers.

The extent of TLC’s commitment to employeeswas severely tested during the Asian financial crisisof the late 1990s. As orders shrank and losses piledup, management took extraordinary measures toforestall layoffs as much as possible. These includeddepleting the company’s retained earnings andmanagement taking a 20% pay cut. When all thesefailed to prevent the inevitable retrenchment,management implemented the process with asmuch transparency and compassion as it couldmuster (Y. Sevilla, personal communication, July25, 2006).

The humanistic approach of San Jose KitchenCabinets and The Leather Collection has resultedin extremely low turnover of employees. Thisresults in growing and committed knowledgecapital that has helped both companies meet variouschallenges.

PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKFOR HUMANISTIC ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Since this study aims to contribute to theorybuilding in ethical entrepreneurship, what followsbuilds on the above exposition in order to providea basis for eight hypothesized relationships whichcan be confirmed in future research. Thehypothesized relationships among key constructsare depicted in the conceptual framework in Figure1. The principal outcome (dependent variable)which the framework proposes to explain isemployee integral human development. In thisregard, the first hypothesis posits the organization’sethical cultural development as the independentvariable (Reidenbach & Robin, 1991; Schein,1992):

H1: The organization’s level of ethical culturedevelopment positively influences employees’integral human development.

The level of ethical development of a company’sculture depends on the ethical development of the


entrepreneur (Treviño & Nelson, 1999), whichleads to the next hypothesis:

H2: The founding entrepreneur’s level ofethical development and virtues (cognitivemoral development and character) positivelyinfluences the organization’s ethical culturedevelopment.

The influence of the entrepreneur’s ethicaldevelopment on that of the company culturedepends on the cultural leadership skills of theentrepreneur (Schein, 1992). Formally:

H3: The founding entrepreneur’s cultureleadership skills positively moderates theinfluence of the entrepreneur’s ethicaldevelopment and virtues on the organization’sethical culture development.

As Schein (1992) has emphasized, culturalvalues from founders take root only if they are seento “work”. Thus:

H4: The moderating impact of culture leadershipskills on the influence of the entrepreneur’s

ethical development on the company’s ethicaldevelopment is, in turn, positively moderated bythe company’s financial viability.

Naturally, the financial viability of the companyis a function of the entrepreneur’s business skills(Hisrich & Peters, 1998) . Thus:

H5: The entrepreneur’s business skills andcreativity positively influence the company’sfinancial viability.

Collins and Porras (1994) showed that long-surviving companies looked beyond profit and intobeing trustworthy companies, which in turnsupported financial viability. Thus:

H6: A company’s ethical culture developmentpositively influences its financial viability.

Consistent with Schein’s (1992) conception ofculture as developed by “what works”, thecompetitive advantage of being an ethical companydepends on industry norms and regulatory milieu. Inother words, is the environment such that ethicspays? Thus:

Figure 1.Conceptual framework for humanistic entrepreneurship

Entrepreneur’sculture leadership

skills

Entrepreneur’s ethicaldevelopment and

virtues

Organization’sfinancialviability

Organization’sethical culturedevelopment

Entrepreneur’sbusiness skills &

creativity

Industry andinstitutional support for

ethical businesspractices

Employees’integral humandevelopment

H1H2

H3

H4

H5

H6

H7 H8VIRTUOUS

CYCLE

q

q

q q

q q

q

q


H7: The positive influence of the company’sethical cultural development on financialviability is positively moderated by industryand institutional support for ethical businesspractices

Finally, employee growth is viewed as a sourceof competitive advantage as employees becomemore skilled, committed and collaborative inhelping the company achieve its goals and inprudently protecting its interests (Evans, 2008;Sheldrake, 2003;Wren, 2005). Thus:

H8: Employees’ integral human developmentpositively influences the company’s financialviability.

The interrelationships of the variables in thisframework trace a virtuous circle of reinforcinginfluences which results in sustainable improve-ments in a company’s ethical development andfinancial stability. The complexity of therelationships hypothesized in the framework abovesuggests the necessity of a case study approach(Yin, 2002).

CONCLUSION

This study has explored the role ofentrepreneurial business in a developing countrysuch as the Philippines and, in particular, itspotential for the provision of decent work and thepromotion of the integral human development ofemployees as its contribution to nationaldevelopment.

While such a role for business enterprises isultimately founded on the personal character andethical orientation of the founders of such businessestablishments, it can be coherently linked withbusiness strategies in ways that help companiesbecome sustainable.

It is further proposed that certain hypothesesabout the dynamics of humanistic entrepreneurshipbe tested in future research in order to betterunderstand how more people-oriented businessescan be successfully formed in order to help the

country achieve its long sought-after goal of greaterprosperity for more Filipinos.

REFERENCES

Agence France-Presse. (2008, March 7). LucioTan, Henry Sy make it again to world’s richestlist. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved March30, 2008, from http://business.inquirer.net

Alford, H. & Naughton, M. (2001). Managingas if faith mattered. Notre Dame, IN:University of Notre Dame Press.

Anderson, E. (1993). Value in ethics ineconomics. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Asian Development Bank. (2005a). KeyIndicators 2005: Labor Markets in Asia:Promoting Full, Productive, and DecentEmployment. Mandaluyong City: AsianDevelopment Bank.

Asian Development Bank. (2005b). Poverty inthe Philippines: Income, assets and access.Mandaluyong City: Asian Development Bank.

Bakan. J. (2005). The corporation: Thepathological pursuit of profit and power.New York: Free Press.

The case for CSR. (2006, Sept. 25-Oct. 2).BizNews Asia, p. 4.

Bodie, Z. & Merton, R. (2000). Finance. NewJersey: Prentice-Hall.

Bruyat, C. & Julien, P. (2000). Defining the fieldof research in entrepreneurship. Journal ofbusiness venturing, 16, 165-180.

Bucar, B. & Hisrich, R. (2001). Ethics of businessmanagers vs. entrepreneurs. Journal ofdevelopmental entrepreneurship, 6 (1), 59-82.

Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics.(2006). Philippine Labor Index. RetrievedMarch 24, 2008, from http://www.bles.dole.gov.ph/download/vol10_32.pdf

Chavez, G. S. (2000). The relationship ofentrepreneurial styles and firm performancein small and medium manufacturing firmsin Metro Manila. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. Graduate School of Business, DeLa Salle University. Manila.


Clark, T. & Clegg, S. (1998). Changingparadigms: The transformation ofmanagement knowledge for the 21st century.London: HarperCollinsBusiness.

Collins J. C. & Porras J. I. (1994). Built to last:Successful habits of visionary companies.New York: HyperCollins.

Collins J. C. (2001). Good to great. New York:HyperCollins.

Cornwall, J.R. & Naughton, M.J. (2003). Who isthe good entrepreneur? An exploration withinthe Catholic Social Tradition. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 44(1), 61-75.

Crampton, T. (2000, March 8). Investigationthreatens to shut exchange in Philippines.International Herald Tribune. RetrievedMarch 30, 2008, from http://www.iht.com

Curran, C. E. (2002). Catholic social teaching,1891-present: A historical, theological, andethical analysis. Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press.

Dalla Costa, J. (1998). The ethical imperative:Why moral leadership is good for business.Reading, MA: Perseus Books.

Daly, H. E & Cobb, J.B. (1994). For the commongood: Redirecting the economy towardcommunity, the environment, and asustainable future (2nd ed.). Boston: BeaconPress.

De Leon, H. S. (2001). The law on partnershipsand private corporations. Quezon City: Rex.

De Leon, H. S. (2002). Textbook on thePhilippine Constitution. Manila: Rex.

Department of Labor and Employment. (2007).2007 Philippine Industry Yearbook of LaborStatistics. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://www.bles.dole.gov.ph/2007%20Publications/2 0 0 7 % 2 0 P I Y B / 2 0 0 7 _ p h i l i p p i n e _industry_yearbook.htm

DePree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. NewYork: Dell.

Divinagracia, L. A. (1993). Entrepreneurialcompetency needs of UPLB agribusinessstudents and directions toward theformulation of a strategy in response to theirneeds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Graduate School of Business, De La SalleUniversity. Manila.

Donaldson, T & Dunfee, T. W. (1999). Ties thatbind: A social contracts approach to businessethics. Boston, MA: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Dunman, L. J. (n.d.). Solidarity. Retrieved April13, 2008, fromhttp://durkheim.itgo.com/solidarity.html

Edralin, D. (1998). Entrepinoy: Paths tosuccessful entrepreneurship. Manila: De LaSalle University Press.

Employers Confederation of the Philippines.(2004). Cases on business initiatives onwork-life. Makati City: Author.

Ernst & Young. (2008). Ernst & YoungEntrepreneur of the Year. Retrieved February6, 2008, from http://www.eoyphils.com

Evans, J. R. (2008). Quality & performanceexcellence: Management, organization andstrategy (5th ed.). Mason, OH: ThomsonSouth-Western.

Freiberg, K. & Freiberg, J. (1996). Nuts:Southwest Airlines’ crazy recipe for businessand personal success. New York: BroadwayBooks.

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The socialresponsibility of business is to increase itsprofits. The New York Times Magazine.Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://w w w. c o l o r a d o . e d u / s t u d e n t g r o u p s /libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

Gates, J. (2002). Reengineering ownership for thecommon good. In S.A. Cortright, & M. J.Naughton (Eds.), Rethinking the purpose ofbusiness (pp. 264-288). Notre Dame, IN:University of Notre Dame Press.

Gasper, D. (2004). The ethics of development.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership:Rediscovering secretes to creating lastingvalue. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hisrich, R. D. & Peters, M. (1998).Entrepreneurship (4th ed.). Boston, MA:McGraw-Hill.


Hwang, H. & Powell, W. (2005). Institutions andentrepreneurship. In S. Alvarez, R. Agarwal &O. Sorenson (Eds.), Handbook ofentrepreneurship research: Interdisciplinaryperspectives (pp. 201-232). New York:Springer.

Ibañez, R. G. (2002). Bayanihan: The many greatlessons of United LaboratoriesIncorporated. Manila:Anvil.

Institute for Labor Studies. (n.d.). A guide to thePhilippine labor index: Answers toFrequently Asked Questions. RetrievedFebruary 28, 2008, from http://www.ilsdole.gov.ph/FAQ/faqs_pli.htm

International Labour Organization. (n.d.-a). Aboutthe ILO. Retrieved February 16, 2008 fromhttp://www.ilo.org/global/About_the_ILO/lang—en/index.htm

International Labour Organization. (n.d.-b).Decent work for all. Retrieved March 31,2008, from http://www.ilo.org/global/A b o u t _ t h e _ I L O / M a i n p i l l a r s /WhatisDecentWork/lang—en/index.htm

International Labour Organization. (n.d.-c).Decent work. Retrieved March 31, 2008, fromhttp://www.ilo.org/global/Themes/Decentwork/lang—en/index.htm

John Paul II. (1981). Laborem exercens.Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/e n c y c l i c a l s / d o c u m e n t s / h f _ j p -ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens_en.html

John Paul II. (1987). Sollicitudo rei socialis.Retrieved April 13, 2008, from http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/e n c y c l i c a l s / d o c u m e n t s / h f _ j p -i i _ e n c _ 3 0 1 2 1 9 8 7 _ s o l l i c i t u d o - r e i -socialis_en.html

John Paul II. (1991). Centesimus annus.Retrieved March 31, 2008, from http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/e n c y c l i c a l s / d o c u m e n t s /h f_ jp i i _enc_01051991_cen te s imus -annus_en.html

Kooskora, M. (2006). Empirical investigationof corporate moral development. Retrieved

March 31, 2008, from http://www.jyu.fi/e c o n o m i c s / h a n k k e e t / n o r d p l u s /marikooskora.ppt

Leo XIII. (1891). Rerum novarum. RetrievedMarch 31, 2008, from http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

Lim, R. (1996). The PHINMA story: The firstforty years. Makati City: PHINMA.

Longenecker, J. G; McKinney, J. A. & Moore, C.W. (1988). Egoism and independence:Entrepreneurial ethics. Organizationaldynamics, 16(3), 14-72.

Lutz, M. A. (1999). Economics for the commongood: Two centuries of social economicthought in the humanistic tradition. London:Routledge.

Maciariello, J. A. (2000). Credo and credibility:Management systems at ServiceMaster. InFaith in leadership: How leaders live outtheir faith in their work – and why it matters.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mangan, K. S. (2002). The ethics of businessschools. The Chronicle of Higher Education.Retrieved October 21, 2003, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i04/04a01401.htm

Marcic, D. (1997). Managing with the wisdomof love: Uncovering virtue in people andorganizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Margolis, J. D. & Walsh, J. P. (2001). People andprofits?: The search for a link between acompany’s social and financial performance.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Maslow, A. (1998). Maslow on management.New York: John Wiley.

McKay, S. C. (2006). Satanic mills or siliconislands?: The politics of high-tech productionin the Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo.

Mele, D. (2003). The challenge of humanisticmanagement. Journal of Business Ethics,44(1), 77-88.

Merton, R. K. (1934). Durkheim’s Division ofLabor in Society. The American Journal ofSociology, 40(3), 319-328.

National Economic Development Authority.(2005). Millennium Development Goals –


Philippines, 2nd Progress Report. RetrievedFebruary 28, 2008, from http://www.neda.gov.ph/econreports_dbs/MDGs/default.asp

Naughton, M. (2006). The corporation as acommunity of work: Understanding the firmwithin the Catholic Social Tradition. Ave MariaLaw Review, 4(1), 33-74.

National Statistics Office. (2008a). FamilyIncome and Expenditure Survey — TotalNumber of Families, Family Income andFamily Expenditure and Gini Coefficient:2006 and 2003. Retrieved February 6, 2008,from http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2006/table1.pdf

National Statistics Office. (2008b). NationalAccounts: Fourth Quarter 2007. RetrievedApril 14, 2008, from http://census.gov.ph/data/nationalaccounts/index.html

Nicomachean Ethics. (2008, March 13). InWikipedia, the free encyclopedia. RetrievedMarch 23, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics

O’Brien, D. & Shannon, T. (1992). Catholic socialthought: The documentary heritage.Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

O’Toole, J. (1995). Leading change: Theargument for values-based leadership. NewYork: Ballantine Books.

Pollard, C. W. (1997). The soul of the firm.Mandaluyong City: OMF Literature.

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004).Compendium of the social doctrine of theChurch. Manila: Catholic Bishops Conferenceof the Philippines.

Production function. (2008, March 11). InWikipedia, the free encyclopedia. RetrievedMarch 22, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_function

Quinn, J. J. (1997). Personal ethics and businessethics: The ethical attitudes of owner/managersof small business. Journal of Business Ethics,16, 119-127.

Ray, M. & Rinzler, A. (1993). The new paradigmin business: Emerging strategies forleadership and organizational change. NewYork: Putnam.

Reidenbach, R. E. & Robin D. P. (1991). Aconceptual model of corporate moraldevelopment. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(4), 273-284.

Rufino, J. (2007, February 26). Benigno AquinoIII, podcast interview transcript, part 6.Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved March24, 2008, from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net

San Jose Kitchen Cabinets. (n.d.-a). History.Retrieved February 11, 2008, from http://www.sanjosekitchencabinets.com.ph/about/history

San Jose Kitchen Cabinets. (n.d.-b). Primaryobjective (Company mission and vision).Retrieved March 31, 2008, from http://www.sanjosekitchencabinets.com.ph/about/company_vision_and_mission

San Jose Kitchen Cabinets. (n.d.-c). San JoseKitchen Cabinets profit sharing system.Retrieved February 6, 2008, from http://www.sanjosekitchencabinets.com.ph/about/profit_sharing_system

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture andleadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. NewYork: Knopf.

Shane, S. & Venkataraman, S. (2000). Thepromise of entrepreneurship as a field ofresearch. Academy of Management Review,25(1), 217-226.

Shaw, W. H. & Barry, V. ( 2001). Moral issuesin business. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Sheldrake, J. (2003). Management theory (2nd

ed.). London: Thomson.Shelton, C. M. (1990). Morality of the heart: A

psychology for the Christian moral life. NewYork: Crossroad.

Stiglitz, J. (2001, December 8). Information andthe change in the paradigm in economics.Retrieved March 31, 2008, from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2001/stiglitz-lecture.pdf

Taub, Stephen (2002, June 19). A crisis of ethics.Retrieved July 18, 2002, from http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,7349,00.html


Teal, E. & Carroll, A. B. (1999). Moral reasoningskills: Are entrepreneurs different? Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 19, 229-240.

Teehankee, B. (2008). Why should corporationsbe socially responsible? In Doing good inbusiness matters (pp. 1-29). Makati: AsianInstitute of Management.

The Leather Collection Company Brief. (n.d.).Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://www.leathercollection.ph/tlc-about.html

Treviño, L. K. & Nelson, K. A. (1999). Managingbusiness ethics (2nd ed.). New York: JohnWiley.

Velasquez, M. (2006). Business ethics: Conceptsand cases (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Prentice Hall.

Vogt, C. (2005). Maximizing human potential:Capabilities theory and the professional workenvironment. Journal of Business Ethics, 58,111-123.

Wahlstedt, R. (2000). Spirituality andorganizational life: Reflections on a 30-yearexperiment (Reell Precision Manufacturing). InThe Bridge, Spring. Retrieved February 13,2008, from http://www.seeingthingswhole.org/images/Spring00.pdf

Wren, D. A. (2005). The history of managementthought. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Yin, R. (2002). Case study research: Design andmethods. San Francisco: Sage.

Ziskin, L. (Producer), & Marshall, G. (Director) .(1990). Pretty woman [Motion picture].United States: Touchstone.


Appendix A

Formal statements of aspirations of San Jose Kitchen Cabinets

From San Jose Kitchen Cabinets (n.d.-b). Primary objective (Company mission andvision). Retrieved March 31, 2008 from http://www.sanjosekitchencabinets.com.ph/about/company_vision_and_mission

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE (Company Mission and Vision)

Primary Objective (why we established the company. The reason why we believed thecompany should continue to operate)

1. To contribute in the study and promotion of Social Justice (in particular profit sharing).2. To provide employment to people of shared values who are committed to their faith

in God.3. To provide the environment and training necessary for spiritual, intellectual, and

physical development of our employees.4. To create wealth for company, employees, evangelization and Government.5. To help spread the Good News

Core Values

1. Personal Values* Discipline* Social Justice (Fairness to everyone)* Commitment to our faith in God* Humility* Strong Willed Leadership* Health Consciousness* Frugality

2. Customer Care Values: Genuine, Honest and Beneficial to the Customer.

3. Environmental Values: Safe, Orderly, Well-maintained and Aesthetically Pleasant.

Big Goal : What we would like to become in the next 10 to 30 years.

1. A community of people who love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strengthand who love their neighbors as themselves.

2. Freedom from ignorance, poverty and insecurity for our employees.


Appendix B

Formal Statements of Aspirations of The Leather Collection

From Y. Sevilla (personal communication, December 1, 2007).

Vision

• We seek to become a world class Filipino company that fosters:– Mutually nurturing relationships between the company and its stakeholders (customers,

workforce, creditors, suppliers & stockholders);– A total commitment to excellence;– Leadership by example;– A highly empowered workforce;– A work environment conducive to growth;

• A balanced life, and• Community involvement

In the spirit of STEWARDSHIP

Mission

• TLC exists to be a vehicle for hanap-buhay in its fullness• To generate bottomline profits for all its stakeholders:

– Owners - return on equity– Employees - profit share– Customers - value for money– Creditors - return on investment– Suppliers - profits– Community

• Taxes contributed• Jobs & livelihood generated• Collateral enterprises developed

Humanistic Entrepreneurship: An Approach to Virtue-based...

Documents

Transcript of Humanistic Entrepreneurship: An Approach to Virtue-based...