Loyalty in Business? Author(s): John Corvino Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41, No. 1/2, The Role of the Business Person in the Fabric of Society (Nov. - Dec., 2002), pp. 179-185 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25074914 Accessed: 27/11/2010 11:40
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

Loyalty

in Business?

John

Corvino

in business ABSTRACT. Discussions of loyalty assume that employees have a prima facie typically one that some duty of loyalty to their companies, in response unethical practices. Ronald denies Duska, however, to Duska, the existence of any such duty. According one does not have an duty of loyalty to a company, even a prima facie one, because companies are not

which

most

decent

times conflicts with to blow the whistle

other

duties,

such as the duty or to dangerous

on proper objects of loyalty. He bases this conclusion two premises: first, that loyalty is appropriate only in expec relationships that demand self-sacrifice without tation of reward, and second, that the employee

loyalty conflicts companies, with other duties, such as the duty to blow the or unethical in response to dangerous whistle denies the existence Duska, however, practices. to Duska, of any such duty. According "one does not have an obligation to a company, of loyalty to their a prima facie one, because are not companies kind of things that are proper of objects is not claiming, Duska of course, that loyalty."1 one may treat one's colleagues callously or deceit or that to have no obligations fully, employees the companies. whatever duties among a kind their he is suggesting that Rather, an has, loyalty is not employee involves them, since loyalty to companies of category mistake. follows I evaluate Duska's two claim by doing and critique Duska's to identify of loyalty. interesting First, in the argument; things. for the and more even

of Ronald position that employees have

people Duska.

believe. Most

Such folks of

is the believe

a prima facie duty one that sometimes

company relationship does not demand such sacrifice. In this paper I pose a dilemma for Duska. Briefly put: one can interpret Duska's phrase "relationships

of expectation reward" either narrowly or broadly. If one interprets it narrowly, then Duska's first premise is false; if broadly, then his second premise is false. Either way,
Duska's argument is unsound. However, after rejecting

that demand

self-sacrifice

without

In what I examine process, proper

his conclusion I go on to about loyalty in business, to deny that the duty of is right argue that Duska the duty to blow the whistle. loyalty conflicts with More generally, the paper is an attempt to elucidate the proper application of loyalty in business.

but controversial

I attempt

conditions

It

sometimes

seems to

as

if

it were

the

job

of for

Second, application I argue that even though Duska is wrong briefly, to exclude from business, he is right to loyalty that the duty of loyalty conflicts with the deny to blow the whistle. duty

business believing anyway. along and

ethicists that which It is thus provides

provide most decent

arguments people one

Duska follows John Ladd in defining loyalty as a "wholehearted kind."2 of That devotion be object may the fact thus, persons; not is not, individual persons to loyalty's being appropriate According is a proper why, another to Duska, however, of loyalty. object it is useful to consider to an object of some a person or a group are that companies by itself, toward not an every In order analogy a bar them. group to see with

believe comes that

refreshing arguments

when

for

denying

John Corvino isAssistant Professor of Philosophy atWayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. In addition to business ethics, his research interests include metaethics and sexual Debating ethics. He the Ethics, is the editor of Same Sex: and Culture of Science, & Littlefield, 1997). (Rowman

Homosexuality

morally significant are proper objects of pride?

attitude, People

pride. What can be proud

?* r

2002. Journal of Business Ethics 41: 179-185, ? 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands.

180 John of books raised, random of authored, they've or of houses they own children ? to they've take three

Corvino have no place in business, which exists as a means to profit. As Duska writes, A business free enterprise

primarily

books

can be proud of the They examples. if they have authored (or co only or contributed in some way authored, to) them, and they regard them as good pieces of work.

or corporation system: It

does

two

things a good

in the or produces

They

can be proud of their children insofar as achievements. influenced the children's they've can be proud of their houses the They despite fact that others built them because theyve chosen them and maintained them and worked hard on them. By contrast, the payments no sense for to claim to it would make people be proud of the sky, for instance, unless they to be somehow believed themselves bizarrely or maintenance.3 for its presence responsible to make

a profit. The making it makes of a is the primary function of a however, profit, business as a business, for if the production of the or service is not profitable, the business good service and would goods be or out services of business. are a means

Thus to an

nonprofitable end. (337)

It should primary

be noted function The be

that Duska's of business fact out

argument profit

for the is a "the

non-sequitur. business would

being that without

profit

at least two necessary suggest examples a proper conditions for X's being of Y's object that X is valuable, and second, that first, pride: some way or indirectly) Y is in (either directly These for X. responsible claim that people Notice, however, frequently to be proud of things that do not meet these con For ditions the second condition. particularly some people claim to be proud of how example, tall they are, or of their natural haircolor, other personal attributes for which they have no or of clearly claim to be

only proves is a necessary that profit condition for business, not a primary if a person function. (By analogy, not she will it does but die, stops breathing is the purpose follow that breathing of life.) claim suppose we grant Duska's is profit. Why of business does this implications regarding loyalty? Duska

of business"

Nevertheless, that the point claim have explains
To think

further: we us owe to a company think of that or corporation as loyalty a person

requires . . .But is not

company

or as a group with this a person. A

a goal of human way to think. company is an

fulfillment.
A company and

Many responsibility. people an to be of their country proud ("proud even it is by no means clear American"), though to contribute to it. It follows what they've done either attitude that people of pride conditions need The point to determine one must attitude. pride which causal The in applying the sloppy or that the suggested necessary revision or clarification. analogy objects the a proper is that in order of nature an attitude, of that are

is the wrong

instrument,

an instrument with a specific purpose, the making of profit. To treat an instrument as an end in itself, like as an a person, instrument, may not but be as bad give as treating the an end it does instrument

amoral

of the pride the proper first understand is not

status it does not deserve; and by elevating the instrument we lower the end. All things, alike. (338) instruments and ends, become objection seems business to be a that to loyalty not it does

Duska's business deserve:

of my sky object to things with because pride only applies one has some connection (be it special or thinks loyal to akin to being proud of the a kind of category mistake. something that being broader).

responsibility Duska Presumably, business is somewhat

grants the status of a person. But this argument seems question-begging: it assumes that only are proper objects of loyalty, and that is persons to prove. To put the needs precisely what Duska a somewhat different way, we can grant objection to the moral to elevate businesses that it iswrong loyalty to busi such elevation. Besides, compa and doubt groups of persons, nies are without of persons elsewhere Duska that groups allows status of persons nesses requires and still ask why may be proper objects of loyalty.

status

sky, in that it involves it make is it about that would What loyalty to apply it to companies? The inappropriate answer, "depends without expectation according on ties that to Duska, is demand that loyalty self-sacrifice Such ties

of reward"

(337).4

Loyalty to approach Duska's way on his understanding of the argument nature of loyalty. As noted claims Duska above, on ties that demand that loyalty "depends self sacrifice without of reward" (337). expectation Perhaps is to focus This proper lowing claim indicates application argument: a necessary condition of loyalty and suggests for the the fol a better

in Business? certain

181 conditions. it will But while demand expectation our moral who the at of

exists, "self-sacrifice (This fact

ordinarily without

marriage least some reward." for his her in

example, wife divorce deathbed

explains at a certain papers

politician she was while The same

outrage, served on is true

with

is appropriate (1) Loyalty only in relationships that demand self-sacrifice without expec tation (2) The not of reward. does relationship without expec appropriate in the employee-company demand self-sacrifice of reward. loyalty is not

friendship. in it for me?", without promise friend. demand comments between

cancer.) A friend who

constantly to give anything unwilling is not a true of reciprocation, very

asks "What's

their By a certain

In addition

true friendships nature, of other-centeredness. degree to family relationships, Duska also that exist relationships in sports. Duska grants that teammates is appropriate, and seem at first glance to that loyalty that demand is appropriate self-sacrifice all, people the

tation

upon teammates

Therefore,

employee-company Duska's construed remarks on

relationship. business for can be and profit second premise, does not relationship of

loyalty between this concession conflict only without with

might his claim

as evidence

the

in relationships expectation

that the employee-company demand without self-sacrifice

of reward.

After

expectation reward. Non-profit aside, the point corporations of entering business is financial gain, says Duska, one is by no means and without that prospect required, sacrifice. or even advised, to make personal which where

for sports typically play rather than some altruistic team personal sports one

fulfillment, personal in Nevertheless, goal. to sacrifice is indeed required

Compare uses Duska loyalty families

this with an

family of example

relationships,

is appropriate. in the hope

or companionship end marriages quently hopes some were

relationships often begin True, people of some reward security or some such. And people fre these because precisely But there are at least has be the

for the sake of team victory glory one should pass the ball to a teammate (hence, to make who is in a considerably better position a rather than attempt the goal from afar). goal, no coun it appears Thus that sports provide to Duska's claim about the require terexample a necessary ment of self-sacrifice condition being for loyalty. What the sports analogy does do, however, is to raise a question about whether "self-sacrifice" can be understood that it applies broadly enough as well as in the sports in the business setting ? thus undermining Duska's second setting to sacrifice For just a player is expected premise. so too in favor of team victory, personal glory are employees to sacrifice personal expected gain for the sake of company is not to profit. This deny that the very reason for their participation in business same holds is personal gain. As we have seen, the true in sports. But in each case, one's is subject to constraints imposed by of the be wrong larger (and Just for a disloyal) gain at the expense be wrong for an at the expense organization.

disappointed. once one where, relationships family entered such disappointment would them, or at least irrelevant. Consider inappropriate

parent-child missible for

parental of these duties or by the rela by the performance a parent that generates them. Indeed, tionship seems who in it for me?" asks "What's regularly is required the point. One to one's children at least until devoted or not one reach a certain whether age such devotion emotionally profitable.5 to have missed

It is not morally per relationship. a father to walk from his away duties simply because he feels unfulfilled

to be they finds

participation the requirements as of it would team teammate

even have this Indeed, spousal relationships one may per to some degree. Granted, character an unfulfilling under dissolve missibly marriage

to seek personal it would victory, to seek personal

employee

gain

182 John of company such a choice profit. An employee the company, of faced with

Corvino so leave a business when may permissibly doing is profitable. there is a palpable Thus, "expecta tion of reward" in business. But if we narrow the to exclude sacrifices of self-sacrifice concept in any situation where made reward is expected, then we rule out not only business but also teams as well. Duska and (to a lesser extent) families cannot without business, families. Consider have it both expectation or it is not teams and either ways: of reward" required People "self-sacrifice is required in in teams and sports for subordinate in the

as she may immoral. may leave is acting as an agent own not her put To do

the company, interests above be disloyal

but as long she the and

company's.

so would

An example might Smith help here. Suppose is a marketing director for a pharmaceuticals to begin and she is deciding whether company, an ad campaign Itwould for a new antihistamine. for the company if she were be most profitable to begin to wait position thus make the new is clear driven priate, in that her it this month. a month, to buy more a good antihistamine Smith, since then stock however, she will decides be in a

first.

play

in the company and sum of money when sales of drive action here stock prices up. It ismorally wrong, it is appro And as disloyal, to devotion respon discus

personal gain, they willingly to a team's goals because themselves so is personally

that Smith's

of interest. by a conflict I think, to describe this action it reflects a failure of of proper the as a member

long Contracts run, doing gratifying. and other special obligations aside, they may leave teams at will. Duska that the analogy argues is misleading, and business between sports the latter are higher. But issue here is whether sacrifice reasonable sacrifice one's reasonable without to and its stakes pervasive is a red herring: that response the business of demands reward. demand self If it is such ismore

because

role

company,

sible for promoting In short, there sions of business

its interests. reason why is a good ethics often mention

"loyalty to companies" that such loyalty is a namely, of business That and justified familiar feature life. to business" the phrase "loyalty does not as the in the same way "proud phrase as Duska of the sky." It is not because, implies, rhetoric misleadingly business appeals to the team as a kind of game. It is model, treating business is why strike us because require service absolute: function of business does the proper a certain in the of self-sacrifice degree is not sacrifice of a collective goal. The one

expectation claim that sports (because they require one to that to claim

to subordinate

interest

very same reason). to the is irrelevant We can to make the

of the group), then it is that business does (for the The relative gravity of business issue. without point however, sports by analogy, takes families families. Duska situation the same

appealing instead considering as a paradigmatic But

can permissibly leave a company or is no longer when participation profitable can switch In a similar vein, athletes gratifying. can dissolve teams and spouses (for marriages serious reasons). But as long as one is a member of the company, nate to that of appropriate.6 Thus far business does fice without one's interest becomes loyalty subordi becomes the group, and

in which is loyalty some expec too, involve these, appropriate. enter relationships tation of reward: people for so on, and affection, companionship, security, these and they often end relationships where absent. The only such abandonment case we would

things are significantly have considered where

is that of parents and be absolutely inappropriate one cannot minor shirk one's parental children: parenthood profoundly to But surely Duska does not wish unfulfilling.7 in which claim that the only relationships loyalty are those between is appropriate and parents minor horns children. of So Duska either reward seems loyalty (in which caught on the some of a dilemma: permits case, the bar or else it disappears), to a is limited loyalty duties even if one finds

contra Duska, that argued, some degree of "self-sacri require of reward." Duska might expectation I have interpreting "self the phrase too of reward"

expectation that the purpose broadly. After all, I have granted is profit, and I acknowledge that one of business

that I am object without sacrifice

expectation against loyalty in business case not does (in which

Loyalty far narrower set of than Duska relationships have imagined). went argument, or

in Business? from

183

else would anyone To see where Duska useful terized to recap it: his

devotion

it will be wrong, as I have charac

is "wholehearted Ladd: John loyalty to an object of some kind." Many have incom assumed that such devotion is somehow with Bowie For whistleblowing. example, . . . claims that "whistleblowing a prima facie duty to one's employer."9 writes, hopes referee patible Norman

is appropriate (1) Loyalty only in relationships self-sacrifice without that demand expec tation (2) The not of reward. relationship without expec appropriate does

violate(s) Sissela Bok

The whistleblower since he is neither

to stop the game; nor coach, and since

but he employee-company demand self-sacrifice of reward. loyalty is not

tation

Therefore,

in the

on his own team, his act is seen blows the whistle as a violation of loyalty. In holding his position, to his colleagues he has assumed certain obligations and clients. oath He or may a even have of subscribed to a loyalty promise confidentiality. . . .

employee-company The is logically argument follows from conclusion the

relationship. valid, meaning the premises; that the

therefore, must The lie in the premises. problem I have suggested for Duska entails that dilemma can interpret one of his premises is false. One "relationships expectation that demand of reward" self-sacrifice without narrowly only are indissoluble whose relationships obligations But (like the parent/minor-child relationship). then the first to include

Loyalty to colleagues and clients comes to be pitted against loyalty to the public interest, to those who may be injured unless some revelation is made.10

On find

one

devotion

revealing proper Could

one might level, it is easy to see why to a company with incompatible does But that company's problems. be such silence? require devotion that genuine argued costs serious moral up when really to invoke who a child the image of a is about-to-be

devotion it not

is false: loyalty is appro premise in a broader than range of relationships priate that. Or else one can interpret the phrase more one to include where any relationship broadly, must group. subordinate But then one's interest to that of a larger is false: the the second premise such is

requires speaking are at stake? I hesitate parent spanked, or "This the saying "I'm to

this for your own good," doing me more hurts than it hurts you." But an important does underscore image point: devotion requires a willingness to

requires employee-company relationship Either way, Duska's subordination. argument and must be rejected.8 unsound That Duska's said, I think the motivation is a good one. Duska uses

sometimes chastise. Perhaps the difficulty with applying this point to whistleblowing loyalty not yet

behind his

arises mentioned from
?

a characteristic namely, a certain

of

argument point: breach

argument about loyalty in the service of a larger no involves that whistleblowing namely, of is clear: to companies, that duty. But

reasoning loyalty. His have no duty of loyalty employees then afortiori they cannot breach do not need to exclude setting remains in order to make

if

in the shortcomings an example of another object of loyalty. Consider to a brand instance of loyalty: familiar loyalty name. Back in the 1980s I knew a man who was a loyal Buick owner - he was in his forties and degree of tolerance for had owned he Buicks his had since he had me how I remember because current three needing because genuine Acura. owner telling been considering car with a Japanese car. His last (gasp!) Buicks had been lemons, constantly them repair. He had continued buying of his loyalty to the brand, and he felt a an he eventually disloyalty when bought (Apropos, ever since.) he has been a loyal Acura driving. begun he felt guilty his replacing

we

business In what

I shall argue is when under the right conditions, performed even consistent with and indeed, possibly ? one's duty of loyalty. whistle (By by required some confiden blowing, I mean making public tial information within Duska's about a dangerous or unethical borrowed practices Recall company.) definition

the from loyalty the larger point. that whistleblowing,

of loyalty,

184 John a toward loyalty was not directed at least not imme person or a group of persons an object. to a product, it was diately. Rather, in such cases is One might that "loyalty" argue Here the either from or else derivative metaphorical to persons the workers loyalty namely, at Buick. We not need that issue here. settle merely

Corvino are worthy of devotion.12 That is why, company for example, Roger Boisjoly's whistleblowing but even may have been not merely permitted, to Morton his Thiokol required, by loyalty space (which built the Challenger the mafia underling's whistleblowing patible with interesting light of my his loyalty to explore to the mafia. elsewhere shuttle), while is incom be (It would to say, in what

What man to feel

Iwish to highlight is that even though the had three bad Buicks a certain loyalty is understandable in a row, he continued to the brand, and this because devotion short is the to does

persistence an object require comings. simple Another

or otherwise) (be it a person a willingness to tolerate certain One reason for this tolerance

and about Jeffrey Weygand argument, A corollary the tobacco of these companies.) to the remarks is a virtue is that loyalty only extent that the object of loyalty is good. Second, genuine I have that although suggested to a company devotion might actually its public this should not be criticism,

that "nobody's acknowledgment perfect." is that the correction of shortcomings in devotion: if persistence requires typically Buicks because of everyone just stopped buying would company likely would be possible. Of can be taken too far, as it such tolerance course, was in this case. And one might argue apparently that in a free-market to brandnames competition.11 are These system, is outweighed the value by of loyalty the value of bad then the year, and no improvement

one

require taken to imply that the duty to blow the whistle or even stems primarily, from one's typically, to one's company. it stems pri duties Rather, to the from one's duties marily (prima facie) public, or may not conflict with one's even to one's company. Thus, (prima facie) claim that loyalty sometimes those who reject my can accept the larger requires whistleblowing which may duties (which I share with is often of Duska and others) that

fold,

point

issues worth

venue.

here My point a certain requires degree it does not require absolute or complete comings, to put It is one thing for an individual tolerance. with a repair-prone car because of brand

in another exploring is that while loyalty of short of tolerance

justified. I stated that it the paper seems as if it were sometimes the job of business reasons to provide for believing that ethicists To decent believe the which anyway. people extent I believe should business reasons our that not it contains be ethicists for what this characterization a good taken we to is trivial. is accurate deal of (and it truth),

whistleblowing At the beginning

up

life-threatening designs is that The difference, of course, being marketed. costs are at stake. in the latter case serious moral Let me in arguing conclude that with two observations. First,

loyalty; remain

it is quite silent while

another

for

an engineer

to are

whistleblowing, is of loyalty argument example, underling disloyal accepted would

proper require loyalty may I have assumed that the object a good the itself Thus, thing. not in the apply to the mafia." state's evidence case The of, for mafia

convictions good ones. Duska's founded an occasion to explore even where I disagree performed I have a valuable

that the job of suggest For in exploring the we can strengthen believe, and revise our bad or ill argument provides us with the nature of loyalty, and with service. that Duska, but I have conflict with to loyalty also con the duty to him I think he has

"loyalty turns who to his boss,

is indeed

companies that it does tended blow the whistle.

contra argued, is appropriate, not

given by the mafia. We a shift in large part because it represents blowing of devotion embodies away from his boss, who to other persons mafia and values. The values, case in the typical is quite different where the values embodied situation, business by the

the system of values admire his whistle

Proper require loyalty may and even if it does not, the duty criticism, public is only prima facie. The for criteria of loyalty is justified when have been whistleblowing debated if the ments of at considerable correct criteria this paper length are met, are sound, elsewhere.13 and one if the can be But argu loyal

Loyalty In in blowing the whistle. company as in families, true devotion business may require love.14 tough to one's

in Business? minor

185

Notes and Employee Duska, "Whistleblowing as reprinted in Tom Beauchamp and Loyalty," Norman Bowie, Ethical Theory and Business, 3rd ed., hereafter in parentheses. pp. 335?339, 2 Duska p. 336, quoting John Ladd, "Loyalty," The 1967), vol. 5, Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Macmillan,
p. 97.

1

Ronald

children) is sufficient to make loyalty appro priate. (Indeed, the claim seems true by definition.) But it does not follow that this demand is a neces for loyalty: loyalty may be required in sary condition with looser demands. relationships 9 Norman Business Ethics Bowie, (Prentice Hall, cited in Duska, p. 335. 1982), pp. 140-143, 10 and Professional Sissela Bok, "Whistleblowing New York University Education Responsibilities," 2 (1980), p. 3, cited in Duska, pp. 335-336. Quarterly 11 This does not mean that in a free-market system loyalty to brands has no value, but rather that its value ismerely prima facie. 12 a company I readily acknowledge that whether a matter of degree and that embodies good values is the values to which there is often a disparity between it it explicitly aspires and the values that characterize in practice.

to Phillipa Foot for this example. See "Moral Beliefs," Foot, Phillipa Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 59 (1958-1959), 410-425.
4 Duska seems not to have in mind dependence. here a conceptual dependence, a causal

3

I am indebted

5

Putting tute an

a child up for adoption exception, since it involves

does

not

consti one's meeting

that someone else parental duties by acknowledging can better care for the child and arranging for that to happen. 6 The situation is akin to the social contract, where each member becomes better off by subordinating his interest to that of the larger society.
7 See note 5 above.

See for example Sissela Bok, op. cit., or Richard T. DeGeorge, "Ethical Responsibilities of Engineers in Large Organizations," Business and Professional Ethics Journal 1 (Fall 1981), pp. 136-143. 14 to thank participants at the I would like International Conference Business Ethics Promoting in Chicago, Illinois in October 2001, aswell asMark Huston for helpful comments on and Bruce Russell, earlier drafts of this paper.

13

8 My narrow own view sense of

is that Duska
"relationships

probably that intended demand the self Department

of Philosophy,

mistook

sacrifice without expectation a sufficient condition

sary condition. sacrifice without that one finds in relationships

then of reward." He for loyalty for a neces It is true that the demand of self of reward (of the sort expectation between parents and

State University, Wayne 51 West Warren Room 3001,

Detroit Michigan 48202,
U.S.A.

E-mail:

j .corvino@wayne.edu