Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 229 Download : 175

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The Embodiment of Psychoanalytic Theory in Business Ethics


This article aims to review how the manifestation of psychoanalytic theory in explaining unethical behavior in business organizations is demonstrated through an approach to stakeholder theory. The research method uses literature study. This literature study involves secondary data sources, such as books, journals, previous research articles, mass media, and electronic media. Ten needs of human neurosis according to the psychoanalytic theory of Karen Horney, then classified into five managerial styles formulated by Kats de Vries (1984). Five managerial styles in the company's operations must find stakeholder problems which according to stakeholder theory consist of three main problems. Three major problems with stakeholder theory ultimately lead to five ethical failures. Previous research on fraud has always referred to Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory which is the conscious side of humans. However, by following the path of Karen Horney's psychoanalytic theory that carries the human subconscious side, the understanding of fraud becomes different by considering the needs of human neurosis. This study examines the failure of business ethics from the side of the human subconscious (neurosis).


Pengejawantahan Teori Psikoanalitik Pada Etika Bisnis


Artikel ini bertujuan untuk meninjau bagaimana manifestasi teori psikoanalitik dalam menjelaskan perilaku tidak etis dalam organisasi bisnis ditunjukkan melalui pendekatan teori pemangku kepentingan. Metode penelitian menggunakan studi literatur. Studi literatur ini melibatkan sumber data sekunder, seperti buku, jurnal, artikel penelitian terdahulu, media massa, dan media elektronik. Sepuluh kebutuhan neurosis manusia menurut teori psikoanalitik Karen Horney, kemudian diklasifikasikan ke dalam lima gaya manajerial yang dirumuskan oleh Kats de Vries (1984). Lima gaya manajerial dalam operasi perusahaan harus menemukan masalah pemangku kepentingan yang menurut teori pemangku kepentingan terdiri dari tiga masalah utama. Tiga masalah utama dengan teori pemangku kepentingan pada akhirnya menyebabkan lima kegagalan etis. Penelitian sebelumnya tentang penipuan selalu mengacu pada teori psikoanalitik Sigmund Freud yang merupakan sisi sadar manusia. Namun, dengan mengikuti jalan teori psikoanalitik Karen Horney yang mengusung sisi bawah sadar manusia, pemahaman tentang penipuan menjadi berbeda dengan mempertimbangkan kebutuhan neurosis manusia. Studi ini mengkaji kegagalan etika bisnis dari sisi alam bawah sadar manusia (neurosis).

Keywords

Teori psikoanalitik Teori pemangku kepentingan Etika bisnis

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Shabrina Rahutami Nur Amalia

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Trist, K. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting: An Examination of the Psychological Situation and Defences of a Work Group in Relation to the Social Structure and Technological Content of the Work System. Human Relations, 4(1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872675100400101
  2. Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103
  3. Miller, D. (1993). Some organizational consequences of CEO succession. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 644–659. https://doi.org/10.5465/256597.
  4. Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857340
  5. Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and Future Directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
  6. Agle, B., Donaldson, T., Freeman, R. E., & Jensen, M. (2008). Dialogue: Toward Superior Stakeholder Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(2). https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/27673227
  7. Phillips, R., Wicks, A., & Berman, S. (2003). A resource dependence perspective on stakeholder performance. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society, 14, 325–334. https://doi.org/10.5840/iabsproc20031440
  8. Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Fahrbach, C. M. (2014). Doing well by doing good? analyzing the relationship between CEO Ethical Leadership and Firm Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 635–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2124-9
  9. Attas, D. (2004). A moral stakeholder theory of the firm. Zeitschrift Für Wirtschafts- Und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), 312–318. https://doi.org/10.5771/1439-880x-2004-3-312
  10. Cressey, D. R. (1950). The criminal violation of financial trust. American Sociological Review, 15, 738–743. https://doi.org/10.2307/2086606
  11. Wolfe, D.T. & Hermanson, D.R. (2004) The Fraud Diamond: Considering the Four Elements of Fraud. The CPA Journal, December, 1-5.
  12. Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and Human Growth: The Struggle towards Self-Realization. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.
  13. Mann, T. (2015). The Oxford Guide to Library Research. Oxford University Press.
  14. Kets De Vries, M. F. R. (1980). Organizational paradoxes: Clinical approaches to management. Routledge
  15. Kets De Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1984). Neurotic style and organizational pathology. Strategic Management Journal, 5(1), 35–55. doi:10.1002/smj.4250050104
  16. Pedersen, L. J. (2009). See no evil: Moral sensitivity in the formulation of business problems. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(4), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8608.2009.01567.x
  17. Freeman, R. E. (2017). The new story of business: Towards a more responsible capitalism. Business and Society Review, 122(3), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12123
  18. Freeman, R.E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston.
  19. Vidal, N. G., Berman, S., & Van Buren, H. (2015). Stakeholder theory and value creation models in Brazilian firms. Review of Business Management, 911–931. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v17i55.2070
  20. Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2011). Stakeholder theory as a basis for capitalism. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance, 52–72. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230302112_3
  21. Mitchell, Ronald & Cohen, Boyd. (2006). Stakeholder theory and the entrepreneurial firm. Strategy Journal of Small Business
  22. Scheffran, J. (2003). Tools for stakeholder assessment and interaction. Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management, 153–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36917-2_6
  23. Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? an interest- and identity-based model of Stakeholder Group Mobilization. The Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040709
  24. Jones, T. & Wicks, A. (1999). Convergent Stakeholder Theory. The Academy of Management Review. 24. 206. 10.2307/259075.
  25. Donaldson, T. (1999). Response: Making stakeholder theory whole. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 237. https://doi.org/10.2307/259079
  26. Goodpaster, K. (2017). Human dignity and the common good: The institutional insight. Business and Society Review, 122(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12107
  27. Jondle, D., Maines, T. D., Burke, M. R., & Young, P. (2013). Modern risk management through the lens of the ethical organizational culture. Risk Management, 15(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2012.11
  28. Armenakis, A. & Wigand, J. (2010). Stakeholder actions and their impact on the organizational cultures of two tobacco companies. Business and Society Review, 115(2), 147–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2010.00360.x
  29. Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 374–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374
  30. Martin, S. R., Kish-Gephart, J. J., & Detert, J. R. (2014). Blind forces. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(4), 295–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386613518576
  31. Hargrave, T. J., Sud, M., VanSandt, C. V., & Werhane, P. M. (2020). Making sense of changing ethical expectations: The role of moral imagination. Business and Society Review, 125(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12206
  32. Pless, N. M., Sengupta, A., Wheeler, M. A., & Maak, T. (2021). Responsible leadership and the reflective CEO: Resolving stakeholder conflict by imagining what could be done. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04865-6
  33. Verbeke, A., & Yuan, W. (2020). A few implications of the COVID‐19 pandemic for International Business Strategy Research. Journal of Management Studies, 58(2), 597–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12665
  34. Hoyk, R., & Hersey, P. (2008). The ethical executive: Becoming aware of the root causes of unethical behavior: 45 psychological traps that every one of us falls prey to. Stanford Business Books.
  35. Pacagnella Júnior, A. C., Porto, G. S., Pacífico, O., & Salgado Júnior, A. P. (2015). Project Stakeholder Management: A case study of a Brazilian science park. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 10(2), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242015000200004
  36. Newman, A., Le, H., North-Samardzic, A., & Cohen, M. (2019). Moral disengagement at work: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(3), 535–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04173-0
  37. Oehmen, J., Locatelli, G., Wied, M., & Willumsen, P. (2020). Risk, uncertainty, ignorance and myopia: Their managerial implications for B2B firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.018
  38. Rianty N, M., & Rani, S. (2021). Pengaruh Narsisme CEO Terhadap Kualitas Laba Dalam Laporan Keuangan Dengan Variabel Kontrol size Dan Educ. Balance: Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Bisnis, 6(2), 103. https://doi.org/10.32502/jab.v6i2.3870
  39. Guntrip, H. (2019). The ‘Culture Pattern’ Theory and Character Analysis. In J. D. Sutherland (Ed.), Personality Structure and Human Interaction (1st ed., pp. 1–456). essay, Routledge.
  40. Vousinas, G. L. (2019). Advancing theory of fraud: The S.C.O.R.E. model. Journal of Financial Crime, 26(1),372–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfc-12-2017-
  41. Tommasetti, R., de Oliveira Leite, R., Mothé Maia, V., & da Silva Macedo, M. A. (2021). Revisiting the accounting fraud components: A bottom-up approach using the Twitter platform. SAGE Open, 11(4), 215824402110581. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211058190
  42. Agustina, R. & Pratomo, D. (2019). Pengaruh Fraud Pentagon Dalam Mendeteksi Kecurangan Pelaporan Keuangan. Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen, Ekonomi, & Akuntansi (MEA), 3(1), 44-62. DOI: 10.31955/mea.vol3.iss1.pp44-62.
  43. Vivianita, A. & Indudewi, D. (2018). Financial Statement Fraud pada perusahaan pertambangan yang Dipengaruhi oleh Fraud Pentagon Theory (Studi Kasus di Perusahaan Tambang yang Terdaftar di BEI tahun 2014-2016). Dinamika Sosial Budaya, Vol. 20(1), 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.26623/jdsb.v20i1.1229