Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Modern Corporation and the Idea of Freedom

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While the idea of freedom lies at the heart of our economic system, academic research has neglected to connect theories of the firm to freedom theory. To fill this void, the authors delineate two archetypes of freedom — quantitative and qualitative — and outline the consequences of the respective notions for organisational strategy, corporate governance, leadership and culture. Supporting the quest for reform in management theory, the authors argue for an enlarged perspective of the role of the firm within free societies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Freeman, E., A.C. Wicks, and Parmar, Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”. Organization Science, 2004. 15(3): pp. 364–369. are a notable exception. In a spirited discussion of the corporate objective function, they argue that “the real issue behind the discussion of the corporate objective function is that of economic and political freedom.” (p.386).

  2. Brickson, S.L., Organizational Identity Orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 2007. 32(3): pp. 864–888. Sharp Paine, L., Value Shift: Why Companies Must Merge Social and Financial Imperatives to Achieve Superior Performance, ed. McGraw-Hill. 2003.

  3. Jackson, I. and J. Nelson, Profits with Principles- seven strategies for delivering value with values. 2004, New York: Currency Doubleday. Hart, S., Capitalism at the Crossroads — The Unlimited Business Opportunities in Solving the World ’s Most Difficult Problems., ed. W.S. Publishing. 2005. Pirson, M., Pacing the Trust Gap: How Organizations can measure and manage stakeholder trust. Dissertation. 2007, St. Gallen: University of St. Gallen.

  4. DiTomaso, N, R. Parks-Yancy, and C. Post, Structure, relationships, and community responsibility. Management Communication Quarterly, 2003. 17: pp.143-150. DiPiazza, S.A., Building Public Trust- The Future of Corporate Reporting, ed. PriceWaterhouseCoopers. 2002, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 188. Bakan, J., The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power. 2004: Penguin Books, Canada.

  5. Freeman, E., A.C. Wicks, and Parmar, Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”. Organization Science, 2004. 15(3): pp. 364–369. Hart, S., Capitalism at the Crossroads — The Unlimited Business Opportunities in Solving the World’s Most Difficult Problems., ed. W.S. Publishing. 2005. Cragg, W., Business ethics and stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2002. 12(2): pp. 113–143.

  6. Sundaram, A.K. and A.C. Inkpen, The Corporate Objective Revisited. Organization Science, 2004. 15(3): pp. 350–363. Friedman, M., Capitalism and Freedom. 2nd edition (September 15, 1982) ed. 1962, Chicago: University of Chicago.

  7. There have been important attempts to use the different etymological history of the terms liberty and freedom in order to establish a meaningful semantic difference between them. Although we are not at all hostile to these attempts, we chose, given our purposes, not to avail ourselves of this method but will work instead with the qualifiers “quantitative” and “qualitative”.

  8. Berlin, I., Liberty, ed. H. Hardy. 2002, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  9. Sen, A., Development as Freedom. 1999, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  10. Marx, K., Capital, ed. F. Engels. 1906, New York: The Modern Library.

  11. Taylor, C., Negative Freiheit? — Zur Kritik des neuzeitlichen Individualismus. 1999, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Harvey, D., A Brief History of Neoliberalism. 2005, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  12. Berlin, I., Liberty, ed. H. Hardy. 2002, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  13. Nozick, R., Anarchy, state, and Utopia. 1974, New York: Basic Books.

  14. Hayek, E, Constitution of Liberty. 1970: University of Chicago Press.

  15. Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice. 1999, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  16. Sen, A., Development as Freedom. 1999, Oxford: Oxford University Press

  17. Patterson, O., Freedom in the Making of Western Culture. 1991. New York, N.Y., Basic Books.

  18. Rifkin, J., The European Dream. How Europe’s Vision the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream. 2004, New York: Polity.

  19. Foner, E., The story of American freedom. 1998, New York: W.W. Norton.

  20. Dierksmeier, C. Qualitative oder quantitative Freiheit?, in Rechtsphilosophische Hefte XII / 2007, pp. 107–119.

  21. Carter, I., Kramer, M. H. and Steiner, H. (eds), Freedom: A Philosophical Anthology. 2007. Oxford: Blackwell.

  22. Marx, K., Capital, ed. F. Engels. 1906, New York: The Modern Library, p.240.

  23. Dewey, J. and J. A. Boydston. The middle works, 1899–1924. 2008. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.

  24. MacIntyre, A., Whose Justice? Which Rationality? 1988: University of Notre Dame Press. Sandel, M., Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. 1982, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  25. Beiner, R., What’s the matter with Liberalism? 1992, Berkeley: University of California Press. O’Neill, O., Justice, Gender, and International Boundaries, in Global Justice and Transnational Politics. Essays on the Moral and Political Challenges of Globalization, C. Pablo De Greiffand Cronin, Editor. 2002, MIT Press: Cambridge (MA). p. 303–323.

  26. Dierksmeier, C. John Rawls and the rights of future generations, in Handbook of Intergenerational Justice, edited by Joerg Chet Tremmel: Cheltenham / Northampton 2006, pp. 72–85.

  27. Galston, W., Defending Liberalism. American Political Science Review, 1982. 76: pp. 621–629. Gutmann, A., Communitarian Critics of Liberalism. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1985. 14(3): pp. 308–322. Dworkin, R., Liberal Community. California Law Review, 1989. 77(3): pp. 479–504.

  28. Holmes, S., The Permanent Structure of Antiliberal Thought, in Liberalism and The Moral Life, N.L. Rosenblum, Editor. 1989, Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA. pp. 227–253.

  29. Caney, S., Cosmopolitanism and the Law of Peoples. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 2002.10(1): pp. 95–123. Ingram, D., Between Political Liberalism and Postnational Cosmopolitanism: Towards an Alternative Theory of Human Rights. Political Theory, 2003. 31(3): pp. 359–391.

  30. Sen, A., Rationality and Freedom. 2002, Cambridge, MA/ London: Harvard University Press, p. 13.

  31. Nedelsky, J., Reconceiving Autonomy: Sources, Thoughts and Possibilities, in Law and the Community, A.C.H.a.L.J.M. Green, Editor. 1989, Carswell: Toronto. pp. 219–252. Wolf, S., Freedom within Reason. 1990, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  32. Dewey, J. and J. A. Boydston. The middle works, 1899–1924. 2008. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press.

  33. Dierksmeier, C., Qualitative oder quantitative Freiheit?, in Rechtsphilosophische Hefte XII / 2007, pp. 107–119.

  34. Habermas, J., Three normative models of democracy, in The inclusion of the other, C.C.a.P.D. Greiff, Editor. 1998, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Habermas, J., The postnational constellation. 2001, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  35. Scherer, A.C. and G. Palazzo, Toward a political conception of corporate social responsibility: business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 2007. 32(4): pp. 1096–1120.

  36. Dierksmeier, C., Qualitative oder quantitative Freiheit?, in Rechtsphilosophische Hefte XII / 2007: pp. 107–119.

  37. Our concept of qualitative freedom converges notably with that of “substantive freedom” advanced by Amartya Sen. We hold, however, that the adjective “qualitative” better conscribes what both Sen and we are fending for. while Sen pitches his notion of “substantive” freedom against notions of merely “formal” freedoms (Sen 1999), we think that either qualifier may bring about misleading associations: The notion of “substantive” might invoke a materially predetermined concept of liberty, whereas Sen is only for designing the procedural conditions of freedom’s concretionalization. Inversely, his rejection of a merely “formal” freedom may be misunderstood as a stance against the legitimate procedural elements that, again: according to both him and us, must be part and parcel of freedom theory. In short, the notion of qualitative freedom is all-around clearer.

  38. Mises, L.v, Liberalismus. 1927, Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag. Friedman, M., Capitalism and Freedom. 2nd edition (September 15, 1982) ed. 1962, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Hayek, F., Constitution of Liberty. 1970: University of Chicago Press. Nozick, R., Anarchy, state, and Utopia. 1974, New York: Basic Books.

  39. Dewey, John. Problems of Men. New York, (1968), Greenwood Press, p.114.

  40. Flikschuh, K., Freedom: Contemporary Liberal Theory. 2007, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, p.170.

  41. Dierksmeier, C., Qualitative oder quantitative Freiheit?, in Rechtsphilosophische Hefte XII / 2007: pp. 107–119.

  42. Donaldson, T., Editor’s comments: Taking ethics seriously— A mission now more possible. Academy of Management Review, 2003. 28: p. 363–366. Smith, N.C., Corporate social responsibility: Whether or how? California Management Review, 2003. 45(4): pp. 52–76.

  43. Rangan, K., et al., Business Solutions for the Global Poor: Creating Social and Economic Value. 2007: John Wiley & Sons. Sharp Paine, L., Value Shift: Why Companies Must Merge Social and Financial Imperatives to Achieve Superior Performance, ed. McGraw-Hill. 2003.

  44. Friedman, M., Capitalism and Freedom. 2nd edition (September 15, 1982) ed. 1962, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

  45. Sundaram, A.K. and A.C. Inkpen, The Corporate Objective Revisited. Organization Science, 2004. 15(3): p. 350–363. Jensen, M.C., Value maximization, stakeholder theory and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2002. 12(2): pp.235-257.

  46. “What is commonly known as stakeholder theory, while not totally without content, is fundamentally flawed because it violates the proposition that a single-valued objective is a prerequisite for purposeful or rational behavior by any organization. In particular a firm that adopts stakeholder theory will be handicapped in the competition for survival because, as a basis for action, stakeholder theory politicizes the corporation and leaves its managers empowered to exercise their own preferences in spending the firm’s resources” (Jensen, 2002).

  47. Freeman, E., A.C. Wicks, and Parmar, Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”. Organization Science, 2004. 15(3): pp. 364–369. Charreaux, G. and P. Desbrières, Corporate Governance: Stakeholder Value Versus Shareholder Value. Journal of Management and Governance, 2001. 5(2): p. 107–128.

  48. Sharp Paine, L., Value Shift: Why Companies Must Merge Social and Financial Imperatives to Achieve Superior Performance, ed. McGraw-Hill. 2003.

  49. Fama, E.F., Agency Problem and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy, 1980. 88(2): pp. 288–307. Eisenhardt, K., Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 1989. 14(1): pp. 57–74.

  50. Donaldson, L. and J.H. Davis, Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns. Australian Journal of Management, 1991. 16(1): pp. 49–66. Davis, J.H. and F.D. Schoorman, Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 1997. 22(1): pp. 20- 48.

  51. Argyris, C, Some limits of rational man organizational theory. Public Administration Review, 1973. 33(May/lune): p. 253–267. Argyris, C., Integrating the individual and the organization. 1964, New York: Wiley. Nguyen-Huy, Q., Do humanistic values matter? Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 2000. ODC: pp. A1-A6. Davis, J.H., F.D. Schoorman, and L. Donaldson, Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 1997. 22(1): pp. 20–47.

  52. Brickson, S.L., Organizational Identity Orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 2007. 32(3): pp. 864–888. DiTomaso, N., R. Parks-Yancy, and C. Post, Structure, relationships, and community responsibility. Management Communication Quarterly, 2003. 17(143–150). Mintzberg, H., R. Simons, and K. Basu, Beyond selfishness. Sloan Management Review, 2002. 44(1): pp. 67–74. Ghoshal, S., Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2005. 4: pp. 75–91.

  53. Davis, J.H., ED. Schoorman, and L. Donaldson, Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 1997. 22(1): pp. 20–47.

  54. Argyris, C., Organization man: Rational and self-actualizing. Public Administration Review, 1973. 33(July/August): pp. 354–357.

  55. Macus, M., Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Boards — Conceptual Development and Empirical Exploration. 2002, HSG: St. Gallen. p. 1–37. 48. Donaldson, L. and J.H. Davis, Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns. Australian Journal of Management, 1991. 16(1): pp. 49–66.

  56. Muth, M.M. and L. Donaldson, Stewardship Theory and Board Structure: a contingency approach. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 1998. 6(1): p. 5–29. 48. Donaldson, L. and J.H. Davis, Stewardship Theory or Agency Theory: CEO Governance and Shareholder Returns. Australian Journal of Management, 1991. 16(1): pp. 49–66.

  57. See e.g. Lewin, K., A dynamic theory of personality. 1935, New York: McGraw-Hill. Army, U., Military Leadership, ed. U.S.A. Handbook. 1973.

  58. E.g. Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio, Transformational Leadership And Organizational Culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 1994. 17(3): pp. 541–554. Burns, J.M., Leadership. 1978, New York: Harper & Row.

  59. Bass, B.M., Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact. 1998, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Manz, C.C., Self-leadership: toward and expanded theory of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 1986. 11: pp. 585–600. Manz, C.C. and H.P.J. Sims, Leading workers to lead themselves. The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1987. 32: pp. 106–29.

  60. Bass, B.M., Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact. 1998, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Army, U., Military Leadership, ed. U.S.A. Handbook. 1973.

  61. Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio, Transformational Leadership And Organizational Culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 1994. 17(3): pp. 541–554.

  62. Bowie, NE., Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective. 1999, Oxford: Blackwell. Stroud, S., Defending Kant’s ethics in light of the modern business organization. Teaching Ethics, 2002. 2(2): pp. 29–40.

  63. Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio, Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. 1994, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  64. Politis, J.D., The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 2001. 22(8): pp. 354–364. Manz, C.C. and H.P.J. Sims, Business without bosses: How self-managing teams are buidling high performance companies. 1993, New York, NY: Wiley.

  65. Bass, B.M. and B.J. Avolio, Transformational Leadership And Organizational Culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 1994. 17(3): pp. 541–554.

  66. Brickson, S.L., Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2005. 50: pp. 576–609.

  67. Brickson, S.L., Organizational Identity Orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 2007. 32(3): pp. 864–888.

  68. Collier, J. and R. Esteban, Governance in the participative organisation: freedom, creativity and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 1999. 21(2/3): pp. 174.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stonehill College, Easton (Boston), MA, USA

    Claus Dierksmeier (Associate Professor for philosophy)

  2. Harvard University, Harvard, MA, USA

    Michael Pirson (Assistant Professor)

Authors
  1. Claus Dierksmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Pirson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claus Dierksmeier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dierksmeier, C., Pirson, M. The Modern Corporation and the Idea of Freedom. Philos. of Manag. 9, 5–25 (2010). https://doi.org/10.5840/pom2010932

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/pom2010932

Keywords

Search

Navigation