Unethical, neurotic, or both? A psychoanalytic account of ethical failures within organizations

• Author: R. Edward Freeman,Simone Colle
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12239
• Published date: 01 January 2020
• Date: 01 January 2020

Business Ethics: A Eur Rev. 2020;29:167–179. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer  

|

 167

© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Conceptions of ps ychological man, in the sense u sed

here, have yet been im plemented in any sig nificant

way. They call for viewin g the organizat ion as an

adaptive orga nism directed to it s own perpetu ation.

Thus conceived, an organization is a problem‐solving

mechanism. It is a n educational i nstitution th at, for

its own survi val, must increase the psyc hological and

economic compe tence of those who wor k in it. This

conception cal ls for a different r ole for the leade r,

that of a teacher of pro blem solving an d a facilitator

of human development.

H. Levinson, T he Great Jackass Fallacy (1973, p. 31)

1 | INTRODUCTION

The stream of research in behavioral ethics is increasingly gaining

attention among business ethics scholars, as indicated by the com‐

prehensive revi ews by Treviño, Weaver, and Reynolds (20 06), Kish‐

Gephart, Harrison, and Treviño (2010), Treviño, Den Nieuwenboer, and

Kish‐Gepha rt (2014), and Moore and Gino (2015). B ut surprisingly, the

work of psychoana lytic psychologist s applied to organizations h as not

yet clearly conn ected with the work of busines s ethicists. One contri‐

bution of psychoanalytically informed scholars to organization studies

consists in dra wing attention to t he role of unconscio us processes in

organization life, including their influence on ethical decision‐making

Received:14June2018 

|

  Revised:13May2019 

|

  Accepted:2July2 019

DOI: 10 .1111/bee r.12239

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Unethical, neurotic, or both? A psychoanalytic account of

ethical failures within organizations

Simone de Colle1 | R. Edward Freeman2

1IESEG School of M anagement (LEM‐CN RS

9221), Paris La Dé fense cedex, France

2Darden Schoo l of Business, Unive rsity of

Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia

Correspondence

Simone de Coll e, IESEG School of

Management , Paris campus: So cle de la

GrandeArc he1,Parvisd eLaDéfense,

F‐92044 Pari s La Défense cedex , France.

Email: s.decolle@ieseg.fr

Abstract

This paper aims to integr ate insights from psycho analytic theo ry into business eth ‐

ics research on th e sources of ethical fai lures within organiz ations. We particula rly

draw from the analysis of s ources and outcomes of neurotic processes th at are part

of human development , as described by the ps ychoanalyst Kare n Horney and more

recently by Manfred Ket s de Vries; we interpret their ins ights from a stakeho lder

theory per spective. Busine ss ethics research s eems to have overlooked how “neu‐

rotic management st yles” could be the ante cedents of unethic al behavior within or‐

ganizations.Aftershowingtheconnectio nbetweenfivemanagerialneurosesandthe

corresponding pote ntial ethical failu res within organizat ions that have been alrea dy

identified within business ethics research, we suggest three organizational st rate‐

gies to counteract t hese failures. Fir st, we argue that ma nagers should pay greate r

attention at the comp lexity of human motiv ation, avoiding the simplis tic view of

compliance‐based app roaches. Second , we discuss the impor tance of developing a

conversation around v alues within organizations, enabl ing healthy individual growth

and limiting the eme rgence of neurotic process es. Finally, we discuss the role of the

business ethicist in f acilitating such a process, sugge sting a parallel between the ro le

of the business ethicis t and that of the psychoanalytic th erapist.