Need a 450 word DB Post

Positive Organizational Ethics: Cultivating and Sustaining Moral Performance

Leslie E. Sekerka • Debra R. Comer •

Lindsey N. Godwin

Published online: 12 October 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract We present this special issue on positive orga-

nizational ethics (POE) to highlight those pursuing positive

subjective experiences, positive attributes of individuals and

groups, and positive practices that contribute to ethical and

virtuous behavior in organizations. Although prior research

has offered some insight in this area, there is still much to be

learned about how to cultivate and sustain ethical strength in

different types of organizations and how goodness can

emerge from and in spite of human failings. After describing

the positive movement, we position POE as a discrete area of

inquiry within the broader positive behavioral sciences, at

the intersection of positive behavioral studies and business

ethics. After defining our terms and purpose for creating the

POE domain, we introduce the articles in this special issue.

The introduction concludes with suggested topics for future

research.

Good executives focus on opportunities rather than

problems. Problems have to be taken care of, of

course; they must not be swept under the rug. But

problem solving, however necessary, does not pro-

duce results. It prevents damage. Exploiting oppor-

tunities produces results. (Drucker 2004, p. 62)

Introduction

Scholars have begun to make progress into explorations of

the positive side of organizational life, but we believe there

is untapped potential in terms of what can be gleaned from

the existing foundational studies, applying knowledge

about what creates, supports, and sustains ethical strength

in business enterprise. This special issue began with our

asking: How might a positive lens advance our under-

standing of ethical cognition, affect, and behavior in the

workplace? In posing this question, we recognized that

although we need continued research to explicate what

leads employees to make poor ethical choices, we must

also explore what encourages and sustains positive ethical

decision-making and action at the personal, group, and

organizational levels of analysis. Managers need a wide

variety of resources to understand and foster ethical per-

formance in varied contexts. By unpacking ethical failure,

which has been the focus of the majority of scholarship

within the field of organizational behavior to date, and

examining the building blocks of ethical strength, scholars

can help people to engage in more productive and mean-

ingful lives in the workplace.

Throughout the past decade we have seen a burgeoning

exploration of the many positive aspects of organizational

behavior (cf. Cameron et al. 2011; Caza and Caza 2008;

Donaldson and Ko 2010; Miller et al. 2012; Pittinsky and

Shih 2004; Searle and Barbuto 2011; Sekerka et al. 2009;

Spreitzer and Sonenshein 2003). Scholars across various

organizational disciplines have begun to pose questions

aimed explicitly at describing, explaining, and predicting

what forms of thinking, feeling, and behavior are associ-

ated with the best of humankind. Studies in the general area

of positive psychology (PP) as well as in the domains of

Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS) and Positive

L. E. Sekerka (&) Ethics in Action Research and Education Center, Menlo College,

Atherton, CA, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

D. R. Comer

Zarb School of Business, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY,

USA

L. N. Godwin

Stiller School of Business, Champlain College, Burlington, VT,

USA

123

J Bus Ethics (2014) 119:435–444

DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1911-z

Organizational Behavior (POB) have put the spotlight on

the best aspects of our organizational systems at both the

individual and collective levels. Work in these areas has

sought to leverage and enhance effectiveness in a way that

goes beyond promoting basic organizational survival,

seeking instead to uncover what contributes to personal and

collective thriving in the workplace (i.e., Cameron et al.

2003).

Even with years of appreciative insight now mounting

across various social science fields, positive assumptions

inherent in organizational inquiry often give way to tradi-

tional problem-focused analyses, interventions, and tech-

niques. Such deficit-based approaches to research and

practice direct our collective learning toward how to

diagnose organizational ills and how to fix identified issues

rather than how to cultivate organizational flourishing (i.e.,

Bakker and Schaufeli 2008; Seligman 2011). Furthermore,

such problem-centric foci tend only to move individuals

and organizations from a state of malady and weakness to a

condition of normalcy, rather than to cultivate strengths

(Cooperrider and Godwin 2012; Cooperrider and Sekerka

2006). Although today’s management theories are

informed by a wide variety of disciplines, as Ghoshal

powerfully argued, ‘‘they have increasingly converged on a

pessimistic view of human nature’’ (2005, p. 82). This

negative myopia in our theoretical foundations as a field

led him to decree that ‘‘Bad Management Theories are

Destroying Good Management Practice’’ (2005).

Why has a focus on problems become the dominant lens

through which scholars explore organizational life? Per-

haps it is because negative issues tend to command our

attention (Baumeister et al. 2001). As a result, if we want to

move beyond this inherent negativity bias in our scholar-

ship, it is essential that we pay deliberate and explicit

attention to strengths, the elements and facets of organi-

zational behavior that support and cultivate the best of our

capabilities. Purposeful targeted inquiry into the conditions

of thriving in organizational life is especially vital because

of the challenges that continue to beset the global business

environment. These issues consistently draw us back into

myopic investigations that focus primarily on the ‘‘dark

side’’ of management (Neider and Schriesheim 2010).

Like the swinging of a pendulum, our collective schol-

arship has moved toward finding an equilibrium. Despite

our natural inclination to attend to what is wrong, man-

agement literature has increasingly incorporated uplifting

topics, such as organizational resiliency (e.g., Sutcliffe and

Vogus 2003), upward spirals of positive emotions (e.g.,

Fredrickson 2009), compassion as a generative force (e.g.,

Dutton and Workman 2012), high-quality connections in

the workplace (e.g., Stephens et al. 2013), virtuousness in

support of organizational performance (e.g., Cameron

2003), and a general science of happiness and well-being in

everyday life (e.g., Diener 2000; Seligman 2002). These

inquiries into the positive aspects of organizational

behavior have perhaps been, in part, a response to the

deficit-based approaches dominating the social sciences

(Ghoshal 2005).

We see vast opportunity to build upon this momentum

with additional positive research that targets the intersec-

tion of Positive Behavioral Studies and Business Ethics. To

ensure that scholars weave their explorations of ethical

disorder and dysfunction together with ethical achieve-

ment, aspiration, and excellence in performance (e.g.,

Linley et al. 2006), we argue for an integrated framework

among the positive research domains, one that specifically

advances business ethics. Such a focus must offer practical

application to current workplace settings, where real ethi-

cal issues demand daily attention. The study of ethics in

organizational settings requires a unique and sustained

exploration of the positive to complement the more

ingrained examination of ethical problems, issues, and

challenges that dominates the field.

We, therefore, direct this special issue on Positive

Organizational Ethics (POE) to those pursuing positive

subjective experiences, positive attributes of individuals

and groups, and positive practices that contribute to eth-

ical and virtuous behavior in organizations. We embrace

the notion that negative situations, contexts, and experi-

ences can ultimately fuel positive outcomes and produce

fresh theoretical knowledge. Although some work has

already been done in the area of POE (e.g., Caza et al.

2004; Giacalone et al. 2005; Sekerka and Godwin 2010;

Stansbury and Sonenshein 2010; Verbos et al. 2007;

Whitaker and Godwin 2013), we have not yet fully

explained how to cultivate and sustain ethical strength in

different types of organizations, nor how ethical strength

can emerge from and in spite of human failings. For this

issue, we welcomed scholars’ contributions to help clarify

how people, and the organizations in which they work,

build ethical strength and moral performance—in good

times and in bad.

To set the stage for the nascent field of POE, we first

provide a more detailed description of the positive move-

ment, with a brief review of the rise of PP and its influence

on research in POS and POB. We conceptualize POE as a

discrete area of inquiry within the broader positive

behavioral science movement, positioned at the intersec-

tion between the domain of Positive Behavioral Studies

and the field of Business Ethics (see Fig. 1). This intro-

duction to the special issue also defines the terms and

purpose of this new realm of scholarly work. Then, we

offer a brief overview of the articles selected, giving

readers a snapshot of what these works reveal about the

emerging field of POE. We conclude with suggested topics

for future research.

436 L. E. Sekerka et al.

123

A Brief History of the Positive Movement

Historically, the field of psychology, an important foun-

dational discipline for organizational studies, has focused

almost solely on trying to define, understand, and solve

human dysfunction. Indeed, a look at the latest version of

the American Psychiatric Association’s classic Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2013) sug-

gests that much time and effort have gone into diagnosing

what is wrong with people’s emotional health. Researchers

brought this same ‘‘diagnose-and-fix’’ mentality into

organizations, working to root out dysfunction in employ-

ees, teams, and systems. Undoubtedly, the use of this

clinical problem-solving model has led scholars to impor-

tant discoveries—findings that have helped to address the

symptoms at multiple levels of analysis. On the other hand,

use of this deficit-based framework has distracted us from

considering what contributes to effective existence and

what underwrites long-term well-being. As Seligman, a

founding father of PP, once stated, ‘‘[T]his progress has

come at a high cost…Relieving the states that make life miserable, it seems, has made building the states that make

life worth living less of a priority….If you are [seeking the latter], you have probably found the field of psychology to

be a puzzling disappointment’’ (2002, p. ix).

In his highly influential presidential address to the

American Psychological Association, Seligman officially

declared the need to launch the field of PP. He called for a

rejuvenation of the Association’s mission, describing the

field of psychology as being ‘‘literally half-baked. We had

baked the part about mental illness; we had baked the part

about repair of damage. But…that’s only half of it. The other side’s unbaked, the side of strength, the side of what

we’re good at’’ (1999, p. 559). He reflected on his own

scholarship, which had focused on mental illness and

human failing. He recognized, after spending decades on

the concept of learned helplessness, that he had been blind

to the notion of learned optimism. He came to see how he

could expand his understanding of humanity by shifting his

attention to human strengths—the power to move beyond

adversity and to thrive despite difficult circumstances.

Until this call to action, the positive focus in psychology

had largely been understudied or simply overlooked.

Defined as the study of ‘‘positive subjective experiences,

positive individual traits, and positive institutions promised

to improve the quality of life and prevent the pathologies

that arise when life is barren and meaningless’’ (Seligman

and Csikszentmihalyi 2000, p. 5), PP helped to usher in a

new era of scholarship in the social sciences.

This new wave of PP research at the turn of the mil-

lennium inspired more scholars of management and orga-

nizational behavior to explore the positive side of

organizational life. Subsequently, two new general areas of

inquiry emerged. One of the domains, POB, was presented

as the study and application of ‘‘positively-oriented human

resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be

measured, developed, and effectively managed for perfor-

mance improvement in today’s workplace’’ (Luthans 2002,

p. 59). Work in this area tends to focus on individual

positive psychological conditions and human resource

strengths related to employee well-being or performance

improvement. As described by Bakker and Schaufeli

(2008), POB targets cognitive and affective capacities that

contribute to creativity and wisdom, and explores how

favorable qualities such as self-efficacy, optimism, hope,

and resiliency enable individuals to cope with organiza-

tional demands and foster exceptional performance. Work

in POB also examines peak performance in organizations,

particularly the conditions under which employees thrive.

This area of inquiry closely dovetails with those working

and engaged in the second domain, a broad movement

within the Academy of Management (AOM) referred to as

POS.

POS provides a conceptual framework for organizing

and integrating research on creating and sustaining positive

organizations (Cameron et al. 2003). Here, the focus is on

the study of that which is positive, flourishing, and life-

giving in organizations. The term ‘‘organizational’’ within

POS refers to the interpersonal and structural dynamics

activated in and through organizations, specifically taking

into account the context in which positive phenomena

occur (Cameron and Caza 2004). The overarching aim is to

identify, examine, and better understand ‘‘positive out-

comes, processes, and attributes of organizations and their

members’’ (Cameron et al. 2003, p. 4). The purpose of

research in POS is to understand the drivers of positive

behavior in the workplace, what enables organizations to

rise to new levels of achievement (Roberts et al. 2005).

Scholars working within this domain tend to study orga-

nizations characterized by appreciation, collaboration,

virtuousness, vitality, and meaningfulness; abundance and

Fig. 1 Positioning POE between literature domains

Positive Organizational Ethics 437

123

well-being are indicators of success (Bernstein 2003).

Subject areas within POS include constructs such as

strength, resilience, vitality, trust, organizational virtuous-

ness, positive deviance, extraordinariness, and meaning

(e.g., Cameron 2003; Spreitzer and Sonenshein 2003, 2004;

Sutcliffe and Vogus 2003).

In presenting this special issue, we do not attempt to

make distinctions between the emerging bodies of positive

literature (for more details see Donaldson and Ko 2010).

We do, however, see that POS and POB are currently the

most prominent areas of positive inquiry that concentrate

on the workplace and on accomplishment of work-related

outcomes. Whereas POB tends to focus more on the indi-

vidual and POS more on the organization, studies in each

domain have offered insights stemming from, and applied

to, both micro and macro perspectives. That said, POB

tends to be more concerned with individual psychological

states and human strengths that influence employee per-

formance (Luthans 2002), whereas POS targets the positive

aspects of the organizational context that influence thriving

(Cameron 2007). Taken together, PP, POB, and POS have

given scholars a robust set of tools to move away from

negativity as a starting point for scientific inquiry. No

longer tethered to the predominant model of problem

deconstruction and resolution, many social scientists have

embraced the importance of understanding wellness, hap-

piness, and flourishing in organizational settings.

So influential are these growing bodies of work that

research on the positive elements of individual and col-

lective organizational realities (i.e., strength-based inquiry)

is no longer at the fringe of the AOM. It has become an

element of our mainstream scholarly dialogue. For exam-

ple, the first POS-themed sessions debuted at the Acad-

emy’s annual conference in 2002. By 2011, there were

nearly 40 positive-themed sessions at the meeting. 1

Per-

haps the most telling evidence of the impact of positive

scholarship came a year earlier, when the theme of the

Annual AOM Meeting in Montréal, Canada was ‘‘Dare to

Care.’’ Just as Seligman had challenged the American

Psychological Association members a decade earlier,

leaders of the Academy used their platform to challenge

scholars ‘‘to consider whether our research and the

knowledge we produce contribute to the well-being of the

larger society in which we live and work.’’ Furthermore,

they asked researchers and practitioners alike to ‘‘focus on

enabling others to create, produce, and deliver goods and

services that enhance the well-being of, and generate value

for, all the stakeholders involved.’’ 2

Coming full circle, positive psychologists have also

begun to recognize that a growing body of empirical evi-

dence, based on topics within their own movement, relates

to the creation of positive organizations. In the Journal of

Positive Psychology, Donaldson and Ko (2010) outline

how research in POS and POB provides a practical

knowledge base for making significant improvements in

the quality of work life and organizational effectiveness.

Nonetheless, as Mills et al. (2013) underscore, there is

much more work to be done. The time has come to apply

positive topics and concepts directly to the study and

advancement of business ethics.

Positive Organizational Ethics

Over the years, scholars have attempted to determine what

distinguishes an ethical organization from an unethical one.

As Verbos et al. (2007) point out, we have learned a great

deal about unethical behavior, corporate misconduct, and

the processes that lead to such negative phenomena (Bolino

et al. 2013; Jones and Ryan 1997; Sims 1992, 1994; Sims

and Brinkmann 2003; Treviño and Youngblood 1990;

Weaver et al. 1999). Although the reduction or elimination

of unethical practices is important, it is not sufficient for

creating and sustaining an ethical organizational identity.

Verbos et al. (2007) propose we look more specifically at

what establishes a positive ethical organization. Their work

suggests that positive ethics in the workplace calls for a

living code, which is the cognitive, affective, and behav-

ioral manifestation of the organization’s ethical identity,

where the ‘‘right thing to do is the only thing to do’’ (2007,

p. 17). We applaud their contribution and seek to take it

forward with this special issue by outlining a specific field

dedicated to encouraging research in the area of POE.

Although the articles in this special issue help to define

the genre in their own right, explaining what we mean by

POE is a critical point of departure. Definitional insight

comes from the words themselves: ‘‘positive,’’ ‘‘organiza-

tional,’’ and ‘‘ethics.’’ First, the word ‘‘positive,’’ according

to the Oxford Dictionary, indicates the inclusion and/or the

presence of something, rather than its negation, withhold-

ing, or the absence. 3

As it relates to ethics in organizational

settings, the term connotes the creation and support of

ethical thinking and behavior rather than the deterrence or

removal of unethical action. Positive means that a quality

exists, and POE focuses on creation and sustainability of

goodness (rather than on what is lacking). To go beyond a

break-even, baseline, or compliance-driven protocol for

ethics, POE invites scholars to conceptualize models for

ethical health, goodness, and well-being. As a field of1 See http://www.centerforpos.org/the-field/about-the-field-of-pos/ pos-at-the-academy-of-management. 2

See http://meeting.aomonline.org/2010. 3

See http://www.oed.com/.

438 L. E. Sekerka et al.

123

study, POE casts the light of inquiry on the advancement of

progressive development and actualization of ethical

strength, fortitude, and excellence in organizational set-

tings. To ‘‘organize’’ is to coordinate components into a

system that will carry out vital functions in order to

accomplish agreed upon goals. 4

With respect to POS, this

refers to the interpersonal and structural dynamics acti-

vated in and through organizations. Combining ‘‘positive

organizational’’ with the word ‘‘ethics’’ highlights a focus

on the principles, virtues, duties, rights, and responsibilities

of organizations and their stakeholders. Ethics also refers to

the rules of conduct recognized in human life, which

explicate standards for right and wrong behavior in asso-

ciation with others. POE is aspirational; work in this

domain aims to create a better future by promoting the

potential for ethical behavior as a pathway to increase

flourishing, good works, well-being, and health.

Scholarship in POE is designed to provide insight with

regard to right action as a sustainable form of business

enterprise. Integrating the meanings of the three terms, we

define POE as the study of people, practices, and contexts

that cultivate and sustain individual and collective ethical

strength to achieve successful and durable moral perfor-

mance in organizations. Since the person, situation, and

context are all relevant factors in creating a positive

ethical organization (Treviño 1986), we situate POE at the

intersection of the existing realms of Positive Behavioral

Studies and Business Ethics. POE occupies the center

position of the Venn diagram in Fig. 1. Within the

Positive Behavioral Studies circle are the major

movements of POS, PP, and POB. Within the Business

Ethics circle are Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),

Environmental Sustainability, Compliance, and Values;

these are key topics rather than an exhaustive list. For

example, in the Positive Behavioral Studies arena (left

circle), scholars might examine how to cultivate organi-

zational environments that foster employee well-being.

Scholars in the Business Ethics arena (right circle) might

examine compliance with ethical standards. In the POE

intersection, scholars might explore how values-based

management approaches help to cultivate ethical behavior

that goes above and beyond compliance and creates

organizational well-being.

To nurture this sector of positive inquiry, we look to

existing frameworks for insight. Cameron (2003) provides

a theoretical platform based on positive deviance in the

organizational sphere. Here, the individual or organization

leverages virtue and character strengths to deviate from the

negative and to advance the positive or best of humanity

(see Fig. 2). This continuum sets forth a relationship

between organizational virtuousness and performance. As

Cooperrider and Godwin (2012) note, ‘‘combined with

positive psychology’s inauguration of a science of human

strengths, POS’s razor sharp clarifying framework truly set

the stage for a fundamental shift in our understanding of

the human condition and its prospects’’ (p. 742). Albeit not

a single theory or method, this framework incorporates

states and processes arising from and resulting in life-

giving forces, optimal functioning, and enhanced capabil-

ities and strengths (Dutton and Glynn 2007) and focuses on

what primes or develops resiliency, restoration, and

extraordinary performance (Cameron and Spreitzer 2010).

Individual Level:

Physiological Illness Health Vitality Psychological Illness Health Flow

|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| Negative Deviance Normal Positive Deviance

Organizational Level:

Revenues Losses Profits Generosity Effectiveness Ineffective Effective Excellent Efficiency Inefficient Efficient Extraordinary Quality Error-prone Reliable Flawless Ethics Unethical Ethical Benevolent Relationships Harmful Helpful Honoring Adaptation Threat-rigidity Coping Flourishing

Deficit or Abundance or Problem Gaps Virtuousness Gaps

Fig. 2 Continuum illustrating positive deviance. See Cameron

(2007)

4 Ibid.

Positive Organizational Ethics 439

123

Targeting strength-based organizational ethics directly

(see Fig. 3), Sekerka (2010) outlines how people and

organizations must go beyond ethical compliance, seeing

moral strength as a worthwhile and achievable perfor-

mance goal. A deliberate emphasis on empowering, pro-

moting, and nurturing ethical strength is necessary in order

to ensure that organizations not only prevent unethical

action, but also promote virtuous behavior. Compliance

with regulations alone is a moral minimum; it does not

yield ethical excellence. Sekerka’s (2010) framework

underscores that POE strives to aim higher, not only pro-

hibiting wrongdoing, but also developing the desire to do

right. Organizational systems, processes, and leadership

must support the notion that the right thing to do is the only

thing to do (Verbos et al. 2007). Management needs to

embrace the responsibility of promoting the ongoing moral

development and ethical strength of employees by estab-

lishing an organizational culture and climate that advances

the open discussion of ethical matters and ethical

discovery.

It delights us that research on organizational ethics

increasingly encourages leaders, managers, and employees

to build an ethical climate and culture (cf. Arnaud and

Schminke 2012; Huhtala et al. 2013; Kaptein 2011; Sch-

wartz 2013; Treviño et al. 1998). Yet, the value placed on

understanding and fostering ethical strength in business

performance remains woefully inadequate. It is, therefore,

essential for organizations to enable employees to exercise

and develop their character and acumen for moral decision-

making and action. Ongoing research must guide organi-

zational practice to support responsibility at every level.

Hence, we direct the attention of scholars and practitioners

to the area of POE. The call for papers to explore this

intersection of Positive Behavioral Studies and Business

Ethics scholarship asked: How are scholars studying and

advancing positive organizational ethics in business

enterprise? How have scholars worked to cultivate,

encourage, and grow the study of organizational ethics,

helping it move beyond compliance?

Learning from the Contributors

The articles this special issue presents bring forward a blend

of fresh insights, which we summarize below. This overview

is followed by the identification of key takeaways and

questions that emerged from this collaborative endeavor.

In ‘‘Reconsidering virtue: Differences of perspective in

virtue ethics and the positive social sciences,’’ David

Bright, Bradley Winn, and Jason Kanov provide a much-

needed integration of two key perspectives on virtues: the

classical philosophical approach that sees virtue as char-

acter and the more contemporary positive social science

approach based on behavior. Bright, Win, and Kanov argue

that the optimal expression of a virtue is an ideal point that

depends on context, advocate the incorporation of character

and context in empirical studies of virtue, and urge more

explicit examination of virtue at the organizational level.

Their work to combine these two perspectives helps to

enrich future research on POE.

Some of the articles in this special issue cover specific

virtues. For example, empathy is explored in ‘‘Wage cuts

and managers’ empathy: How a positive emotion can

contribute to positive organizational ethics in difficult

times.’’ The authors, Jörg Dietz and Emmanuelle Patricia

Kleinlogel, define empathy as an emotional response to

another’s perceived need. Dietz and Kleinlogel created a

lab experiment based on the classic in-basket exercise

technique and collected data from German social psy-

chology students to test their hypotheses about the rela-

tionship between trait-based empathy and compliance with

the requests of an organizational superior. The authors

found that more empathic individuals were more likely to

comply with a superior’s request to cut employees’ wages,

but that empathy was not related to compliance with a

request to freeze wages. They conclude that positive

emotions in the workplace can contribute to ethical orga-

nizational behavior that considers people as well as profits.

As Ace Simpson, Stewart Clegg, and Tyrone Pitsis note,

compassion is different from empathy in that it includes a

Illegal Action Compliance Virtuous Action

Does Harm Does no Harm Reduces Harm

Non-adherence to Regulation Adherence to Regulation Supersedes Regulation

Avoidance Orientation Prevention Orientation Promotion Orientation

Disobedience/Punishment Obedience/Control Empowerment/Development

Closed/Control Open/Discovery |-------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|

Moral Weakness Moral Minimum Moral Strength

Fig. 3 Compliance as the moral minimum. See Sekerka (2010)

440 L. E. Sekerka et al.

123

behavioral component. That is, an individual who conveys

compassion not only feels concern for someone else, but

also acts on that concern. Most of us associate an indi-

vidual’s having concern for another’s welfare and

responding with support as morally good. However, in

‘‘The dynamics of compassion: A framework for compas-

sionate decision making,’’ Simpson, Clegg, and Pitsis

highlight that compassion is not universally appropriate.

The authors present a model, based on their qualitative

analysis of empirical data of readers’ online comments

about two newsworthy events, one in Australia and one in

the UK, suggesting that whether we view giving and

receiving of compassion as legitimate depends on social

norms in interpersonal and organizational relationships.

Thus, whereas Bright et al. assert that the proper expression

of a virtue depends on context, Simpson et al. argue further

that the context affects whether or not at least one virtue—

compassion—should even be a response.

Michelle Harbour and Veronika Kisfalvi’s ‘‘In the eye

of the beholder: An exploration of managerial courage’’

explores courage as a phenomenological construct depen-

dent on the perceptions of actors and informed observers.

Previous research on courage in the workplace has focused

on the challenges of employees and managers as they strive

to do what is right in opposition to pressures from superiors

to behave unethically. In contrast, Harbour and Kisfalvi

examine top Canadian financial-service executives, whose

strategic decisions involve their subordinating personal

interests for the benefit of their organization during a

merger. From their interviews with these executives and

others in their firm close to the merger, the authors offer a

model for understanding whether an act is deemed coura-

geous. They identify two types of managerial courage and

report that for these executives, courage involves the

ability to overcome their negative emotions.

Three of the papers in this special issue focus on macro-

level aspects of POE. ‘‘Supererogation: Beyond positive

deviance and corporate social responsibility’’ by Daina

Dzintra Mazutis concerns supererogatory acts, those

behaviors on the part of an organization that go beyond

moral duties and obligations to stakeholders. Mazutis

contends that supererogation is distinguishable from both

positive deviance and CSR, which do not differentiate

between actions based on duty and those based on norms.

This distinction is useful because stakeholders increasingly

expect companies to engage in behavior that falls under the

rubric of CSR, and criticize them when they do not.

Mazutis builds upon Heyd’s (1982) definition of acts of

supererogation as ‘‘those which are: (1) neither obligatory

nor forbidden, (2) whose omissions are not wrong, and do

not deserve sanction or criticism, (3) are morally good,

both by virtue of their (intended) consequences and by

virtue of their intrinsic value and (4) are done voluntarily

for the sake of someone else’s good, and are thus merito-

rious)’’ (p. 115). She hastens to point out that an advantage

of the supererogatory classification, which focuses on an

act of supererogation, rather than on a particular actor

within an organization or on the organization itself, helps

to clarify how an individual or corporation can behave in

an especially virtuous manner at one time, but commit a

blameworthy deed at another.

Subrata Chakrabarty and Andrea Erin Bass’s ‘‘Bringing

the light of ethics to overcome darkness: Positive organi-

zational ethics to better serve women microfinance bor-

rowers in negative contexts’’ underscores that although

microfinance institutions (MFIs) confer benefits, gender

inequality in developing countries can put women bor-

rowers at risk for exploitation by loan agents. Not only do

the unethical actions of loan agents hurt borrowers, but

they can also blemish an MFI’s reputation. The scholars

hypothesized that MFIs that serve a high proportion of

women would be more likely to have a formal code that

explicitly articulates values and expected behaviors, which

will alleviate the problems confronting women borrowers.

They further predicted that MFIs operating in regions in

which the poverty level is higher and women face more

disempowerment would be particularly likely to have a

code. Their analysis of 275 MFIs from various regions of

the world supports their hypotheses, suggesting that MFIs

need to take explicit steps to pursue ethical strength in the

face of negative contexts.

Zahir Dossa and Katrin Kaeufer define a positive ethical

network (PEN) as ‘‘a purpose-driven network of positive

ethical actors aligned under a shared set of values and

goals.’’ According to the framework they offer in ‘‘Under-

standing sustainable innovation through positive ethical

networks,’’ a crisis can serve as the catalyst for actors to

work together to effect positive change, mobilizing them to

create sustainable financial innovation. Dossa and Kaeufer

conducted semi-structured interviews with employees,

managers, and external stakeholders of a trailblazer in sus-

tainable banking. Additionally, they collected participant

observations and ran focus group discussions. Their findings

confirm their framework: collaboration among prosocial

actors within a PEN, in response to a crisis, results in a

sustainable financial innovation. The authors emphasize that

the PEN provides a supportive context that both gives birth

to an idea and nurtures it to implementation.

Opportunities for Discovery

This special issue identifies POE as a discrete area of

inquiry within the broader Positive Behavioral Studies

movement. The articles herein help advance our under-

standing of the positive side of ethical life in organizations

Positive Organizational Ethics 441

123

and enterprise. One could argue that POE is simply a facet

of study within the existing domains of PP, POS, and POB.

However, insofar as self-serving motives, competition,

power, and money are still the marrow of many firms

(Giacalone and Promislo 2013), it is necessary to declare

POE a separate field in order to ensure a continued focus on

ethical strength in organizational contexts.

The articles in this issue help illuminate this new

domain of POE, making scholarly ideas more visible,

identifying connections to other fields, and priming addi-

tional research and discovery. These articles do not cover

all possible POE concepts, but they do suggest some core

POE themes, including the following:

• Virtue can be viewed as both an organizational perspective as well as an element of character;

• Positive and negative emotions experienced during ethical dilemmas can serve as levers for collective and

individual ethical strength;

• Discrete character strengths of moral courage, empathy, and compassion are salient in the pursuit of moral

fortitude in ethically challenging circumstances, but

may be construed and valued in varying ways; and

• An awareness of the complexity of identities (e.g., personal and organizational) is an important element in

generating variations in commitment to character (virtue

ethics), duty (deontology), and consequences (conse-

quentialism) and depends upon the context and research-

ers’ unit of analysis (e.g., micro, meso, and macro).

Taking the contributions as a collective statement about

the future of POE, the opportunities for additional discovery

are substantial. It is our fervent hope that future research will

advance this domain by addressing questions such as:

• How do individuals sustain their desire to achieve ethical performance and virtuous consideration of

others when they work in organizations that promote

and reward selfish, self-serving behaviors?

• How can business schools serve as a training ground of POE behaviors for our future business leaders by

cultivating fair play, honest engagement, and ethical

strength through informal and formal curricular/rein-

forcing experiences?

• What skillsets and mental models support coping and resiliency for those facing the repercussions of whis-

tleblowing, speaking truth against corrupt power, and

otherwise engaging in morally courageous actions?

• How might positive ethical reinforcement via financial mechanisms encourage a long-term commitment to ethical

performance across the global business community?

• What are the form and function of POE within firms that possess an unfavorable ethical identity vis-à-vis

their industry (tobacco, fossil fuels, etc.)?

• How do POE scholars and practitioners help transform the gestalt of corporations from being narcissistic

(Downs 1997) and psychopathic (Bakan 2004) toward

becoming entities with an ethical conscious?

• What can the arts teach us about creating ethical organizations? How can we develop morally coura-

geous business leaders who have the courage of great

artists to ‘‘see reality as it actually is and not as others

would have us see it; the courage to envision previously

unimagined and unimaginable possibilities; and the

courage to inspire others to bring possibility back to

reality’’ (Adler 2006, p. 494)?

• What would an integrated POE theoretical framework, one that reflects and balances an organization’s capacity to build

ethical strength from both virtue and vice, look like?

We Conclude with Gratitude

The special editors gratefully acknowledge a number of

people who helped make this issue a reality. We offer our

appreciation to Thomas Maak, Special Issues Editor of the

Journal of Business Ethics, for supporting our idea for a

special issue on POE; and Sivakani Jayaprakash and Radha

Shankar of Springer, for their patient assistance. Thanks also

go to our reviewers, whose sustained commitment and ded-

ication served to develop the contributions and thereby

improve the issue overall; and to our authors, who diligently

revised and polished their work, helping us to introduce the

domain of POE. Finally, we were gratified by the response to

our Call for Papers. A great deal of exciting research is

emerging; regretfully, we could not accept more of the

submissions. We look forward to seeing others’ explorations

of these topics as we collectively advance POE scholarship.

The notion of sustained positive ethical performance in

and by organizations awaits further scholarly pursuit. We

hope the insights our contributors offer and the questions

their work raises inspire others to pursue inquiry within

POE. There are ample opportunities to unpack the foun-

dations of human strength and build and maintain the vir-

tuous organization. Understanding what fuels our desire,

ability, and willingness to engage in moral decision-mak-

ing and action with resiliency and fortitude during chal-

lenging circumstances can help us continue to cultivate the

best of humanity within our organizations.

References

Adler, N. (2006). The arts & leadership: now that we can do anything

what will we do? Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 5(4), 486–499.

442 L. E. Sekerka et al.

123

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical

manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American

Psychiatric Publishing.

Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. (2012). The ethical climate and context

of organizations: A comprehensive model. Organization Sci-

ence, 23(6), 1767–1780.

Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit

and power. New York: Free Press.

Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive Organizational

Behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147–154.

Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. (2001).

Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5,

323–370.

Bernstein, S. D. (2003). Positive Organizational Scholarship: Meet the

movement: An interview with Kim Cameron, Jane Dutton, and

Robert Quinn. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12, 266–271.

Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013).

Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 542–559.

Cameron, K. S. (2003). Organizational virtuousness and performance.

In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive

Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline

(pp. 48–65). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cameron, K. S. (2007). Positive Organizational Scholarship. In S.

Clegg & J. Bailey (Eds.), International encyclopedia of orga-

nizational studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the discipline of

Positive Organizational Scholarship. American Behavioral Sci-

entist, 47(6), 731–739.

Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. (Eds.). (2003). Positive

Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline

(pp. 207–224). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Cameron, K. S., Mora, C., Leutscher, T., & Calarco, M. (2011).

Effects of positive practices on organizational effectiveness.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3), 266–308.

Cameron, K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2010). Introduction: What is

positive about positive organizational scholar? In K. S. Cameron

& G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Positive

Organizational Scholarship (pp. 1–14). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Caza, A., Barker, B. A., & Cameron, K. (2004). Ethics and ethos: The

buffering and amplifying effects of ethical behavior and

virtuousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(2), 169–178.

Caza, B. B., & Caza, A. (2008). Positive Organizational Scholarship:

A critical theory perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry,

17(1), 21–33.

Cooperrider, D., & Godwin, L. (2012). Positive organization devel-

opment: Innovation-inspired change in an economy and ecology

of strengths. In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford

handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 737–750).

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Cooperrider, D., & Sekerka, L. E. (2006). Toward a theory of positive

organizational change. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Organization

development: A Jossey-Bass reader (pp. 223–238). San Fran-

cisco: Wiley.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness

and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist,

55(1), 34–43.

Donaldson, S., & Ko, I. (2010). Positive organizational psychology,

behavior, and scholarship: A review of the emerging literature

and evidence base. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(3),

177–191.

Downs, A. (1997). Beyond the looking glass: Overcoming the seductive

culture of corporate narcissism. New York: AMACOM.

Drucker, P. F. (2004). What makes an effective executive? Harvard

Business Review, 82(6), 58–63.

Dutton, J. E., & Glynn, M. (2007). Positive Organizational Scholar-

ship. In C. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), Handbook of organiza-

tional behavior. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dutton, J. E., & Workman, K. M. (2012). Compassion as a generative

force. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20, 401–406.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity: Groundbreaking research

reveals how to embrace the hidden strength of positive emotions,

overcome negativity, and thrive. New York: Crown.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good

management practices. Academy of Management Learning and

Education, 4(1), 75–91.

Giacalone, R. A., Jurkiewicz, C., & Dunn, C. (2005). Positive

psychology in business ethics and corporate responsibility.

Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Giacalone, R. A., & Promislo, M. D. (2013). Broken when entering:

The stigmatization of goodness and business ethics education.

Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(1), 86–101.

Huhtala, M., Feldt, T., & Hyvönen, K. (2013). Ethical organisational

culture as a context for managers’ personal work goals. Journal

of Business Ethics, 114(2), 265–282.

Jones, T. M., & Ryan, L. V. (1997). The link between ethical

judgment and action in organizations: A moral approbation

approach. Organization Science, 8, 663–680.

Kaptein, M. (2011). Understanding unethical behavior by unraveling

ethical culture. Human Relations, 64(6), 843–869.

Linley, P. A., Joseph, S., Harrington, S., & Wood, A. M. (2006).

Positive psychology: Past, present, and (possible) future. Journal

of Positive Psychology, 1, 3–16.

Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of Positive Organi-

zational Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,

695–706.

Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. (2012).

Venturing for others with heart and head: How compassion

encourages social entrepreneurship. Academy of Management

Review, 37(4), 616–640.

Mills, M. J., Fleck, C. R., & Kozikowski, A. (2013). Positive

psychology at work: A conceptual review, state-of-practice

assessment, and a look ahead. Journal of Positive Psychology,

8(2), 153–164.

Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2010). The ‘dark’ side of

management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Pittinsky, T. L., & Shih, M. J. (2004). Organizational commitment

and worker mobility in positive perspective. American Behav-

ioral Scientist, 47(6), 791–807.

Roberts, L. M., Spreitzer, G., Dutton, J., Quinn, R., Heaphy, E., &

Barker, B. (2005). How to play to your strengths. Harvard

Business Review, 83, 74–80.

Schwartz, M. S. (2013). Developing and sustaining an ethical

corporate culture: The core elements. Business Horizons,

56(1), 39–50.

Searle, T. P., & Barbuto, J. E. (2011). Servant leadership, hope, and

organizational virtuousness: A framework exploring positive

micro and macro behaviors and performance impact. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 107–117.

Sekerka, L. E. (2010, June). Getting curious about ethics: Cultivating

intrinsic motivation toward moral awareness in the workplace.

Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics

National Conference (June 10th), Conference Proceedings,

University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Sekerka, L. E., Bagozzi, R. P., & Charnigo, R. (2009). Facing ethical

challenges in the workplace: Conceptualizing and measuring

professional moral courage. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 565–579.

Positive Organizational Ethics 443

123

Sekerka, L. E., & Godwin, L. (2010). Strengthening professional

moral courage: A balanced approach to ethics training. Training

& Management Development Methods, 24(5), 63–74.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1999). The president’s address. American

Psychologist, 54, 559–562.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new

positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfill-

ment. New York: Free Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish: A new understanding of

happiness and wellbeing. New York: Free Press.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychol-

ogy: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 4–14.

Sims, R. R. (1992). The challenge of ethical behavior in organiza-

tions. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 505–513.

Sims, R. R. (1994). Ethics and organizational decision-making: A call

for renewal. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron ethics (or: Culture

matters more than codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3),

243–256.

Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2003). Positive deviance and

extraordinary organizing. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R.

E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Founda-

tions of a new discipline (pp. 207–224). San Francisco: Berrett-

Koehler Publishers.

Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct

definition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist,

47, 828–847.

Stansbury, J. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Positive business ethics:

Grounding and elaborating a theory of good works. In K.

S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of

Positive Organizational Scholarship (pp. 340–352). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Stephens, J. P., Heaphy, E. D., Carmeli, A., Spreitzer, G. M., &

Dutton, J. E. (2013). Relationship quality and virtuousness:

Emotional carrying capacity as a source of individual and team

resilience. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(1), 13–41.

Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing for resilience. In

K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive

Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline

(pp. 94–110). San Francisco: Berett-Koehler Publishers.

Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision-making in organizations: A

person–situation interactionist model. Academy of Management

Review, 11, 601–617.

Treviño, L. K., Butterfield, K. D., & McCabe, D. L. (1998). The

ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee atti-

tudes and behaviors. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(3), 447–476.

Treviño, L. K., & Youngblood, S. A. (1990). Bad apples in bad

barrels: A causal analysis of ethical decision-making behavior.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(4), 378–386.

Verbos, A. K., Gerard, J. A., Forshey, P. R., Harding, C. S., & Miller,

J. S. (2007). The positive ethical organization: Enacting a living

code of ethics and ethical organizational identity. Journal of

Business Ethics, 76(1), 17–33.

Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Corporate

ethics as programs as control systems: Influences of executive

commitment and environmental factors. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 42, 41–57.

Whitaker, B., & Godwin, L. (2013). The antecedents of moral

imagination in the workplace: A social cognitive theory

perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 61–73.

444 L. E. Sekerka et al.

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.