Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The experiential exercise presented here, using a dialectic process similar to that found within Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST), developed by Mason and Mitroff, offers graduate and undergraduate management students the opportunity to study a contemporary ethical problem in a new way. The ethical issues of a plant closedown presented in this exercise are very complex and involve fact, human passion and emotion, issues of aesthetics, and morality. The goal is not only to introduce the dialectic method but also to provide students with a very clear understanding of the way that their own biases serve to filter information and to bypass necessary questions and testing of assumptions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amason, A. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123-148.

Churchman, C. West. (1989). The systems approach and its enemies. New York: Basic Books.

Cosier, R. A., & Schwenk, C. (1990). Agreement and thinking alike: Ingredients for poor decisions. Academy of Management Executive, 4(1), 69-74.

Gilligan, C. (1977). In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 481-517.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Glover, S., Bumpus, M., Logan, J., & Ciesla, J. (1997). Re-examining the influence of individual values on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1319-1329.

Hawkins, K., & Power, C. (1999, April). Gender differences in questions asked during small decision making group discussions. Small Group Research, 30(2), 235-256.

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kumar, R. (1997, March). The role of affect in negotiations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 84-100.

10.

Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions. New York: InterScience.

11.

Nutt, P., & Backoff, R. (1997, December). Facilitating transformational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(4), 490-508.

12.

Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 51-71.

13.

Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P. L. (1989). Experimental effects of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy and consensus approaches to strategic decision-making. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 745-772.

14.

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, U.S. Department of Labor (1989). Fact sheet. Retrieved from www.doleta.gov

The Interiors Plant Shutdown: Using Dialectic Inquiry in a Complex Ethical Decision

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References