Building Leadership Effectiveness This program encourages leaders to develop practices that transform values into action, vision into realities, obstacles into innovations, and risks into rewards. Participants will be introduced to the five practices of exemplary leadership: modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart Coaching & Communicating for Performance Coaching & Communicating for Performance is a highly interactive program that will give supervisors and managers the opportunity to build skills that will enable them to share expectations and set objectives for employees, provide constructive feedback, more effectively engage in learning conversations, and coaching opportunities. Skillful Conflict Management for Leaders As a leader, it is important to understand conflict and be effective at conflict management because the way conflict is resolved becomes an integral component of our university’s culture. This series of conflict management sessions help leaders learn and put into practice effective strategies for managing conflict.

기독교 사역과 Leadership

Sustainable Development Goals

Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. Pp. viii, 282. £3·50, paperback £1. 1970. (Cambridge University Press.)

Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy

Social identity theory and the organization

The article advances an understanding of responsible leadership in global business and offers an agenda for future research in this field. Our conceptualization of responsible leadership draws on deliberative practices and discursive conflict resolution, combining the macro-view of the business firm as a political actor with the micro-view of leadership. We discuss the concept in relation to existing research in leadership. Further, we propose a new model of responsible leadership that shows how such an understanding of leadership can address the challenges of globalization. We thereby propose positive outcomes of responsible leadership across levels of analysis. The model offers research opportunities for responsible leadership in global business.

/pdf/responsible-leadership-in-global-business-a-new-approach-to-fuut52kst3.pdf

Responsible Leadership in Global Business: A New Approach to Leadership and Its Multi-Level Outcomes

The transition from modern to postmodern society leads to changing expectations about the purpose and responsibility of leadership Habermas’s social theory provides a useful analytical tool for understanding current societal transition processes and exploring their implications for the responsibility of business vis-a-vis society We argue that integrative responsible leadership, in particular, can contribute to the reconciliation of business with societal goals Integrative responsible leadership understood in a Habermasian way is not only a strategic endeavor but also a communicative endeavor An essential part of integrative responsible leadership in light of the current societal transformation processes is the facilitation of discourses about a shared base of norms and values This is exemplified alongside current societal developments like the European migration crisis or the emerging nationalist and fundamentalist movements in some countries We specify how and when leadership should resort to communicative action and discuss the implications for leadership

/pdf/the-normative-justification-of-integrative-stakeholder-573cwxavpm.pdf

The Normative Justification of Integrative Stakeholder Engagement: A Habermasian View on Responsible Leadership

Betriebswirtschaftslehre und Unternehmensethik

The aim of this paper is to analyze Jurgen Habermas’s contribution to the philosophical debate on universalism and relativism, and to consider its implications for organization studies and organizations operating in an intercultural environment. What is at issue in these discussions is whether and in what way a universal justification of reason and rationality can be achieved in the light of the pluralism of existing norms, values, and life-styles in the social world. Proponents of a universalistic perspective argue in the tradition of Kant and the Enlightenment, stressing the idea of a unity of practical reason. In contrast, proponents of a relativistic perspective are sceptical of this idea of a universal conception of reason and advocate a pluralism of cultures and forms of social life. Hence the label “relativism” stands for the understanding that concepts of reason and rationality are historically and culturally contingent, and cannot be justified transculturally or applied to radically different cultures (see Habermas, 1994: 135 ff.). The critics of a universalistic perspective formulate two reservations: (1) the advancement of a universal concept of reason represents an act of domination of a particular perspective and leads to an unjustifiable suppression of the pluralism of cultures and forms of life (e.g. Foucault, 1980). (2) The validity and acceptability of a theoretical or philosophical claim can only be judged within the particular set of rules of the culture and form of life in which it is embedded (e.g. Lyotard, 1984; Lyotard, 1992; Rorty, 1989; Rorty, 1990). In the following we will describe the critique of a universal concept of reason that has been forwarded by sceptical and postmodern philosophers. As a response to this we will both outline the contribution of discourse ethics and analyze the theories of Karl-Otto Apel and Jurgen Habermas. Habermas and his Frankfurt colleague Apel developed an interesting alternative to the relativistic position. We will analyze the justification of discourse ethics and will also point out some problems in its argumentative logic. In the light of this critique, we will outline some characteristics of an intercultural ethics that is based on constructivist philosophy and point to some encouraging prospects on the consolidation of the debate between relativistic and universalistic philosophers.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1714944_code721161.pdf?abstractid=1714944&mirid=1&type=2

Beyond Universalism and Relativism: Habermas’s Contribution to Discourse Ethics and its Implications for Intercultural Ethics and Organization Theory

Stakeholder Theory is a very pluralistic field of research with a large variety of theoretical perspectives and empirical studies. On the one hand this pluralism is a valuable source of creativity, inspiration and innovation, but on the other hand the incoherent claims, messy theoretical foundations, and inconclusive results make it difficult to assess Stakeholder Theory’s contribution to research on Business and Society and Corporate Social Responsibility. We suggest that this pluralism is a result of at least two factors: First, proponents of Stakeholder Theory pursue different research interests prioritizing either the descriptive, the in-strumental, or the normative-ethical aspects of their studies. Second, in the course of their research projects scholars apply different philosophies and methods based on numerous paradigmatic assumptions about how to conduct social research and to develop knowledge on the business-society relationship. A careful analysis of these different research interests and paradigmatic assumptions helps us to better understand the pluralism of the field, to navigate between the various theories, to assess their contribution, and to explore the usefulness of pluralism and the possibility or necessity of theory integration.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=1722612

Moritz Patzer

Papers

Responsible Leadership in Global Business: A New Approach to Leadership and Its Multi-Level Outcomes

The Normative Justification of Integrative Stakeholder Engagement: A Habermasian View on Responsible Leadership

Betriebswirtschaftslehre und Unternehmensethik

Beyond Universalism and Relativism: Habermas’s Contribution to Discourse Ethics and its Implications for Intercultural Ethics and Organization Theory

Where is the Theory in Stakeholder Theory? A Meta-Analysis of the Pluralism in Stakeholder Theory