Collective Phronesis in Business Ethics Education and Managerial Practice: A Neo-Aristotelian Analysis

Abstract

The aim of this article is to provide an overview of various discourses relevant to developing a construct of collective phronesis, from a (neo)-Aristotelian perspective, with implications for professional practice in general and business practice and business ethics education in particular. Despite the proliferation of interest in practical wisdom within business ethics and more general areas of both psychology and philosophy, the focus has remained mostly on the construct at the level of individual decision-making, as in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. However, he also made intriguing remarks about phronesis at the collective level in his Politics: remarks that have mostly eluded elaboration. The aim of this article is practical and revisionary, rather than exegetical and deferential, with respect to Aristotle. Nevertheless, just as most of the literature on individual phronesis draws on Aristotle’s exposition in the Nicomachean Ethics, the obvious first port of call for an analysis of collective phronesis is to explore the resources handed down to us by Aristotle himself. The lion’s share of this article is, therefore, devoted to making sense of Aristotle’s somewhat unsystematic remarks and the lessons we can draw from them about collective managerial phronesis and business ethics education.

The EThIC Model of Virtue-Based Allyship Development: A New Approach to Equity and Inclusion in Organizations

“…Prudence (phronēsis or practical wisdom) refers to the reasoning that enables one to live a virtuous life (Snow et al, 2021 ). Among other roles, prudence provides action guidance as to what specifically needs to be done, enabling a response that is appropriate for the situation (Kristjánsson, 2021 ; Snow et al, 2021 ). Prudence is inherently action-oriented, sensitive to the particulars of the situation, and oriented toward bringing about the good (Grint, 2007 ), enabling individuals to make appropriate decisions that both minimize harm and maximize benefit (Riggio et al, 2010 ).…”

“… 2 Snow et al ( 2021 ) also believe phronēsis involves emotion regulation and reflecting upon the kind of person one is and wants to become. For a similar account of the functions of phronēsis, see Kristjánsson ( 2021 ). …”

Phronesis as reflection

“…Similar approaches are being taken in other disparate professions, including business management and engineering (e.g. Stovall, 2011;Akrivou & Scalzo, 2020;Kristjánsson, 2021). Reflection using phronesis, either self or as part of coaching supervision, can help build the ethical maturity needed by coaches to make wise ethical decisions.…”

Multiple Cases of Pro-Life Volunteering in a Neo-Aristotelian Ethical Approach

“…Several studies adopt this perspective to discuss the ethics of corporations (Solomon, 1992), small businesses (Chu & Moore, 2020), family businesses (Sison, Ferrero, & Redín, 2020) and cooperatives (Bernacchio & Couch, 2015), and take into account their relationships with other stakeholders. In this panorama of Eastern traditions (Confucian, Hindu, or Buddhist) and Western traditions (Aristotelian, Thomist, or MacIntyrean) and their approximations (Hartman, 1998;2008;Koehn, 2020;MacIntyre, 2007;Sison, Ferrero, & Redín, 2020), the neo-Aristotelian approach understands prudence as an element interconnected with moral virtues (Ferrero et al, 2020;Kristjánsson, 2021;Zyl, 2019), and assumes a non-reductive anthropological reasoning. It encompasses, in addition to phronesis, the notions of human nature, actions and habits, character, moral virtues eudaimonia or human flourishing, and even the lifestyle someone chooses (Sison & Ferrero, 2015).…”

“…According to a neo-Aristotelian approach, practical wisdom is the intellectual virtue that allows deliberating about the means in the face of circumstances remaining connected to moral virtues (Kristjánsson, 2021). Justice, fortitude, and temperance form, along with prudence, the set of cardinal virtues.…”