The Ordonomic Approach to Order Ethics

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in III AbstractThe ordonomic approach to order ethics contains four elements: (a) a diagnosis of modernity, which identifies the core problems and directs the research strategy to solving them; (b) a rational-choice analysis of social dilemmas, i.e. positive theorizing which informs about the un-intended consequences of intentional inter-action; (c) the idea of orthogonal positions, i.e. normative theorizing that aims at providing reform orientation while at the same time systematically avoiding controversial value statements; (d) a scheme of three social arenas that helps to understand the interplay between institutions and ideas in societal learning processes. The first section explains why the dominant form of traditional ethics with its focus on individual motives of action needs to be complemented by an ethics of institutional orderin short: order ethicsthat concentrates moral analysis on the framework of rules and their incentive properties. The second section introduces a special version of order ethics: the ordonomic approach. It consists of four analytical elements and their systematic interplay. The third section discusses several applications of the ordonomic approach to order ethics and thus illustrates its heuristic power and problem-solving capacity.

Orthogonality: Developing a structural/perspectival approach for improving theoretical models

“…The process of striving towards orthogonality provides a way to re-think concepts and assumptions to bring new and better understanding to topics of study. Ingo Pies and others use orthogonality to identify new directions of thinking to resolve conflictto find win-win situations (Beckmann, Hielscher, & Pies, 2014;Hielscher, Pies, & Valentinov, 2012;Pies, 2016). For example, in the conflicting views/goals between environmentalists (seeking to preserve nature) and capitalists (seeking to exploit nature), an orthogonal position might be seen in the new goal of sustainabilitysomething of interest to both sides.…”

Exceeding the limits: Commentary on “The limits of transparency”

“…Continued conflict between opposing sides, however, has left none satisfied. When faced with such a dilemma, Pies () suggests seeking an orthogonal “win–win” solution instead of fighting to a stalemate or compromise. Here, the basic problem seems to lie in choosing what and how many things are to be measured in order to improve public understanding without subjecting organizations to unnecessarily burdensome requirements.…”

Sensemaking and sensegiving

“…The ordonomic approach to business ethics focuses on learning processes that involve a dynamic interplay between changes of ideas and changes of institutions. Contributions that characterize this theory include those of Beckmann et al (2014), Hielscher et al (2014), Pies et al (2009), Pies et al (2010) and Pies et al (2014), Pies (2016). In this section, we explore how the ordonomic approach to business ethics can help us to better understand why emotionally driven processes of sensemaking are likely to fail, and that engagement in sensegiving might be an appropriate management remedy.…”

“…Section 4 builds on the ordonomic approach to business ethics (Beckmann et al , 2014; Hielscher et al , 2014; Pies et al , 2009; Pies et al , 2010; Pies et al , 2014; Pies, 2016), in which the central conclusion is that emotionally driven processes of sensemaking are typically dysfunctional in the modern organization. In many cases, employees are led astray by the notion of a trade-off perception that interprets change projects as harming/oppressive/unfair/disloyal/subversive or degrading.…”