Producer Mindset First, Then Teach Business Ethics
This article, by Linette Stratford and Homer Warren, was published in the Journal of Business Ethics Education, 3-18-2020
Abstract
Developing best practices for the business ethics classroom is an ongoing endeavor. One area of interest is the influence of mindsets on teaching and learning business ethics. Various mindsets are proposed to increase student awareness of the body of business ethics knowledge and motivate them to incorporate ethical knowledge in the real world. This paper reviews the current dominant consumer mindset that is argued to have unproductive effects on pedagogical practices in business ethics. Because human beings are biological production systems and live in a world of dynamic natural and human-made production processes, this paper proposes replacing the consumer mindset with Producer Mindset, a world view that is a far more natural way for humans to think, talk, and make decisions. A Producer Mindset framework is constructed for the business ethics classroom and details are provided as to how it can grow the cognitive and emotional capacity of students to independently produce ethical decisions in business and in their personal lives.
This submitted manuscript is original and the authors’ own work. Also, this manuscript is not currently under review by any other journal.
Keywords: Producer, consumer, mindset, language, framework, input-output systems, instinctive, cognitive, metacognition, critical thinking.
Producer Mindset First, Then Teach Business Ethics
It is 2021 and the exploration into best practices for teaching business ethics is ongoing. Jonson, et al. (2016) reviewed researchers, theorists, and practitioners proposing best practices for the business ethics classroom. As we currently speculate about the internet of everything, AI, robotics, distribution of goods, advanced surveillance systems, social media platforms, neuropsychology, and bio-nanotechnology, one can only imagine the challenges future business ethics classrooms will face. One certainty, the future will undoubtedly bring new ethical dilemmas requiring changes in the way we think about and develop practices that best help students navigate those dilemmas (Baron, 2018).
One recent practice getting attention is mindsets. For this paper mindset is defined as a mental attitude or inclination, a person’s way of thinking, a world view. French (2016) reviews various meanings attached to mindset. A proper mindset can help students understand ethical theories, motivate independent critical thinking about ethical situations, and provide a framework needed to approach the multivariate ethical issues they will encounter professionally and personally [Snipes, et al. (2012); Dweck (2006); Mills and Mills (2018); Inada (2020); Li and Bates (2020); Barbouta, et al. (2020)]. Gunn and Gullickson (2005) explain that mindsets shape words, actions, directions, and deeds and conclude that mindsets are constantly changing, reflecting shifts in ways of thinking, thus allowing for a state of mind that enables individuals to act and lead in a dynamic world. Snipes, et al. (2012) argue for an academic mindset, Benson and Dresdow (2003) argue for a discovery mindset, and Begley and Boyd (2003) see the need for a corporate global mindset. Gosling and Mintzberg (2003) propose five different mindsets that apply in a business context: managing self (the reflective mindset); managing organization (the analytic mindset); managing context (the worldly mindset); managing relationships (the collaborative mindset); and managing change (the action mindset). Issa and Pick (2010) look at eight components of ethical mindsets that should serve as the foundation for business ethics decision making: aesthetic judgment, spirituality, optimism, harmony and balance, contentment, truth telling, individual responsibility, and professionalism.
The currently dominant consumer mindset influences all academic classrooms but especially interferes with business ethics pedagogy and should be replaced by Producer Mindset. Improper framing impedes moral awareness and judgment (Dedeke, 2015; Schwartz, 2017). After detailing the Producer Mindset framework, we illustrate how students in a business ethics class at a public university in northeastern Ohio apply it to learn and understand business ethics theories and issues. The paper ends by showing how Producer Mindset relates to other business ethics pedagogy, highlighting the lead author’s experiences teaching business ethics before and after Producer Mindset, and providing student testimonials. [**We’ve embedded student assignments so that the reader can see how students operationalize the details of Producer Mindset.]
Consumer Mindset in Education in America
America is synonymous with consumer culture (i.e., mindset). The consumer mindset adds to freedom and liberty the unfettered ability to choose from a variety of goods in the marketplace. The word consumer has morphed the pursuit of happiness into emotional pleasures from material possessions. Gibson (2011) provides that the phenomenon of consumerism cuts across so many different aspects of contemporary life that it is little wonder it generates so much commentary. Gibson goes on to say that the drive to purchase an excess of private consumer goods plays a key role in a wide variety of social ills. Wang and Murnighan (2014) correlate money, emotions, and ethics across individuals and countries and found a direct relationship between higher incomes and the acceptance of unethical behaviors. Barber (2007) indicates that we are consumed to the point of adults acting like children, a claim often shared by college teachers. Piaget’s (1932) “egocentric”, a term used to identify young children conceiving of a world organized according to their own interest, can be applied to many adults functioning in the marketplace.
American higher education is framed by a consumer mindset. Guilbault (2018) says that there’s no more debate, education is a business and students are consumers. Schwartzman (2013) says that education is modelled after the values of the free market, prioritizing efficiency and customer satisfaction while treating education itself as a commercial transaction and students as consumers to be pleased rather than characters to build. Grineski (2000) posits that the commercialization and commodification of teaching and learning in higher education makes him feel like “we’re not in Kansas anymore.” Jacob (2003) concludes that the commodification of knowledge and education is part of a global process of commodifying everything. Finney and Finney (2010) and Tomlinson (2014, 2017) found that students who view themselves as consumers are less likely to be involved in their education and more likely to view themselves as entitled to receive positive academic outcomes. Woodall, et al., (2014) look at the real value of the university experience when students are perceived as consumers. Bunce, et al., (2016) give evidence that the more students express a consumer orientation, the poorer their academic performance. Williams (2013) sees a shift away from intellectual engagement with content matter towards doing what is necessary to pass or obtain the desired degree classification. Naidoo and Jamieson (2005) show that the consumerist frameworks may unintentionally deter innovation, promote passive learning, and threaten academic standards.
Looking specifically at the business ethics classroom, Giacalone and Promislo (2013) argue that students seeing themselves as consumers is a disruptive element in teaching business ethics. Students bring to the ethics classroom the “baggage” containing two sets of languages of a materialistic worldview that undermines how they see the world and compromises their ethical judgments. One language set is econophonics, the other is potensiphonics. Econophonic language is money-centric (i.e., money dictates and justifies all actions; the commodification of everything). With econophonic language, students see doing good or making moral decisions as a function of profit seeking and financial bottom lines. The language of potensiphonics is about power and supremacy. Habermas (1975) sees potensiphonic language as reinforcing rules, norms, beliefs, attitudes, and values embedded in the status quo to protect and defend personal, community, or national self-interest. Both econophonic and potensiphonic languages contain ideas that disparage virtuous actions as threats to personal and organizational wealth, that see those in need of help as being lazy, irresponsible, or lacking intelligence, and that “keeping up with the Jones” is normal behavior. Along the same lines, Velasquez (2011) says our students come from an environment where those who are virtuous—having the acquired dispositions that morally good human beings exhibit in their behavior—are often ridiculed and mockingly dubbed ‘bleeding hearts’. Haidt (2014) adds that business schools should strive to create a culture of ethics, professionalism, and trust that leads to collaboration, rather than a materialistic culture of competition for scarce resources.
Humans are Producers, Not Consumers
The language of consumer mindset is ubiquitous. Psycholinguistics is resurrecting the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and studying how the causal connection runs not from language to cognitive processes, but from activity of a culture (e.g., consumerism) to language to cognitive processes (Tulviste, 2019). Count Alfred Korzybski (1949) long ago recognized that language is a powerful influencer of thought, and behavior. Confucius’ “rectification of names” points to the importance of language and argues that words must correspond with reality (Hinton, 2014). Senn (2019) studies how F. Scott Fitzgerald weaves the language of commodification into the novel “The Popular Girl”, while Friedman (1985) similarly looks at the language of consumers in novels of the post-WWII era.
Literature critiquing the consumer and consumerism, however, stops short of disavowing the consumer all together. In lieu of totally eliminating the word consumer, this paper proposes that humans should never be identified as consumers, especially in higher education and specifically in business ethics classrooms. Indeed, humans are not consumers and the cultural activity of consumerism is wrongheaded. The very word consumer means to waste, destroy, and dispose of. Humans are not consumers, humans are autonomous agents “producing” a wealth of feelings, actions, reactions, and thoughts. Indeed, our cultural activities should be shaped by human “producerism.” Even the notion of consuming food is wrongheaded. Eating is a production activity. Chewing food is the human producer’s phenomenal digestive system’s first production operation to turn raw materials (food inputs) into energy needed to produce feelings, actions, reactions, and thoughts.
In ecology the precise and restricted definition of a producer is an organism that is able to make its own food through photosynthesis; hence, ecology views humans as consumers. This paper, however, will treat the human producer as a metanarrative for sociology, psychology, anthropology, and economics and argue that humans are naturally producers whose world view (mindset) and therefore, cultural activities should be that of a producer.
The notion that humans are producers has a priori conditions. For one, every aspect of human biology, physiology, and neurology (down to the cellular level) can be described as production operations. Lovelock’s (1979) Gaia hypothesis involves living organisms (like humans) and inorganic materials being part of a dynamical production system that maintains the Earth as a fit environment for life. Physics and the laws of energy that humans live by are universal production processes. Even spirituality is predicated on perceived forms of universal productive energy flowing through all of life. The Book of Genesis in the Judeo-Christian Bible states that humans are “made” in the image and likeness of the Creator (i.e., the “Big Producer”).
Constructing the Producer Mindset Framework for the Business Ethics Classroom
Currently, there is popular conversation that humans are producers but this deals with personal branding (VITELAR, 2019) or the admonishment that people be entrepreneurs and not just consumers (much of this discussion occurs online). Parker (2015) does offer five reasons to “kill” the word consumer but his positions address the dehumanizing effects of consumerism. The business world has recognized that people are prosumers involved in prosumption activities that integrate production and consumption (see Ritzer and Esposti, 2020) but this still allows for the dominant operation of the consumer, consumerism, and the consumer mindset. Hence, a Producer Mindset framework that totally eliminates the consumer had to be constructed anew.
In constructing Producer Mindset for the business ethics classroom, we developed a few self-imposed evaluative criteria. To be effective, the framework had to adhere to the objectives for rule-based ethical teaching, be easy to integrate in business ethics theories, and be appropriate for first year freshman students. Since sense-making is important to teaching and learning business ethics, Producer Mindset had to account for framing, emotion regulation, forecasting, self-reflection, and information integration (see Brock, et al. 2008; Weick, 1995) and have a metacognition feature that gives students a way to think about the way they think (Berardi-Coletta, et al., 1995).
The Producer Mindset also had to bridge the judgment-action gap in moral function that disconnects learning ethics and actual application to decision situations (Blasi, 1980; Sweeney, et. al., 2015). The judgment-action gap often presents obstacles in ethics education (Maclagan 2012; Schmidt et al. 2013). Nyberg (2007) says that the lack of personal involvement in the transfer of a general (ethical) rule to a particular context is usually because neither the rule nor the context resonate with the moral agent’s (student’s) life experiences. Cooper (1985) says that many students seem paralyzed by value confusion and have no idea about how to take a sophisticated stand on value issues.
Finally, Producer Mindset had to have universal qualities that give students a practical and consistent format to study business ethics. Students should have a concrete reason for learning (ethics) and a context within which to place the newly learned knowledge (Cooper, 1985). Right from the beginning, the instructor must adopt an intellectual perspective that everyone can understand. At the end of the paper we will highlight how Producer Mindset satisfies the above criteria.
The Framework
Input-Output
Producer Mindset adopts the work on producer consciousness by Warren and Stratford (2018). The foundation of their work is the input-output model. Miller and Blair (2009) reviews Leontief’s (1966) input-output model for economic analysis and shows the full expansion of the model to other domains. Lin (2020) uses an input-output model to construct an index evaluation system for the educational competitiveness of universities. Klein (1991) uses inputs and outputs to look at the effectiveness of an organization’s self-evaluation and remediation approaches.
Leontief’s (1966) input-output for business has inputs of raw materials, energy, supplies, labor, financial resources, technologies, and public goods (water, sewage removal, roadways, law enforcement, etc.) producing outputs of consumer goods, industrial goods, services, and ideas. Miller and Blair (2009) allows an application of input-output to other domains; we include the study of humans in this extension. Therefore, the outputs of human producers are all their physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual behaviors. The inputs used to produce these outputs are supplied by people (other human producers) places, things, and ideas.
Producer Mindset informs students that there are two sets of inputs-outputs for human producers: actual and aspirational (or desired). Actual input-output involves one or more inputs that are observed to produce one or more specific outputs. Examples are:
· Inputs (good study habits) à Human Producer à Outputs (good grades)
· Inputs (an automobile) à Human Producer à Outputs (going to school, attending events, shopping, taking a vacation, the pleasures of driving)
Aspirational (desired) input-output involves one or more inputs observed to produce one or more desired outputs. An example is:
· Inputs (ethical knowledge from a business ethics course) à Human Producer à Outputs (ethical practices in personal and professional behaviors)
[**Students are given a written exercise to incorporate the input-output model into their own life situations (see Appendix A).]
Human producers’ actual and aspirational inputs-outputs are dynamic, in many cases involving long chains of inputs that produce outputs that become inputs that produce outputs that become inputs (IàO/IàO/IàO/IàOàetc.). On a personal level, one’s entire life is filled with complex chains of actual inputs-outputs that can date back to one’s birth. Collectively, people interact within a huge matrix of integrated economic, social, political, cultural, and moral input-output chains (see Argyle, 2017).
For a simplified illustration of a combined actual and aspirational input-output chain, let us suppose Earl is producing an output of an ethical violation that financially harms a few of the company’s clients. Earl’s outputs are picked up as inputs by Ted, a co-worker. Ted, however, does not produce the output of informing the company or addressing Earl about his unethical outputs. Ted does, however, produce the output of guilt for not doing anything and the output of telling his partner, Lisa. Lisa produces the output of compassion but also the output of encouraging Ted to produce the output of informing the company.
Input-Output and Business Ethics Analysis
Teaching critical-thinking skills in conjunction with moral issues is imperative so that students can evaluate the decisions and the ideas they bring to ethical problems (Paul & Elder, 2006; Mason, 2007). In so doing, students are more likely to critically evaluate materialism and lack of caring and also to carefully assess other potentially harmful ideas that they glean from the media and the culture at large (Newman, 2006). Students are informed that the input-output model is converted into a three step critical-thinking tool for examining ethical situations and issues: Step 1) identify the producers in an ethical situation; Step 2) determine the actual and/or aspirational outputs produced by the producers; and Step 3) explore the possible inputs involved in producing the outputs.
Applying the input-output model’s three steps to Ted’s ethical situation identifies Earl, Ted, and Lisa as the producers. Earl’s actual output was a financial harm to the company’s clients (we can explore the possible inputs involved in producing the output). Ted’s actual outputs are to not inform the company but tell Lisa (again, the inputs producing these outputs can be explored). Lisa’s output is for Earl inform the company. Lisa hopes that her output (which is Earl’s input) will result in an aspirational output for Earl to inform the company.
Human Producer’s Produce Reactions, Actions, Feelings, and Thoughts
Over a lifetime, human producers produce a huge amount of actual and aspirational physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual behaviors (outputs). Haynes (2009) argues for ways to holistically look at the entirety of human lifespan. To facilitate discussing the magnitude of human behaviors over a lifetime, Producer Mindset instructs students to classify human behaviors as reactions, actions, feelings, and thoughts. Damasio (2001) views the difference between feelings and emotions in that feelings are more private than emotions and are the mental representation of the physiological changes that characterize emotions. Feelings include but are not limited to anger, sadness, pity, love, hate, disappointment, joy, and fear. Since feelings are often difficult to articulate, students are recommended to apply “emojis” to express and represent feelings. Reactions will be considered purely physiological (e.g., changes in breathing and heart rates, dilatation of the pupils, sweating, butterflies in the stomach, tightening in the chest, lump in the throat, shoulder and neck tension, and tingling in the face). Reactions also include primal sounds (e.g., screams, laughs, squeals, sighs). Actions involve actual physical movements (e.g., facial expressions, postures, hand gestures, walking, sitting, driving a car, running from a fight, and throwing a punch). Though people can think in pictures and images, Producer Mindset considers thoughts to be a collections and arrangement of words.
Human Producer’s Production Facilities
Producer Mindset divides the human brain-mind into two components: instinctive (non-cognitive) operations and cognitive operations. [The term brain-mind avoids the debate about their difference.] The instinctive operations produce the reactions, actions, and feelings (RAF) played out in acceptance/rejection, approach/avoidance, fight/flight, and pleasure/pain behaviors. Studies relating emotions (feelings) to ethical decision making support this consideration (see Cameron and Payne 2012; Hannah et al. 2011; Gaudine and Thorne, 2001). Yunping (2008) uses the Confucian understanding of emotions and their ethical importance to confirm an understanding of the ethical life being emotional. Haidt (2004) looks at moral judgment being caused mostly by intuitions that include an affective valence (good-bad, like-dislike) without going through cognitive steps. Damasio (2018) and Kahneman (2011) say people are driven by emotions before rational thinking kicks in. When our higher thinking powers do operate, they mostly rationalize and justify desires, greed, envy, fear, and other manifestations of the pleasure/pain, approach/avoidance, and fight/flight survival functions under the reptilian and mammalian parts of the brain.
Cognitive operations produce ethical and unethical thoughts (see Tipu, 2015). Cooper’s (1985) study in cognitive development relative to teaching business ethics, which relied heavily on Kohlberg’s (1973) stages of moral judgment, supports the Producer Mindset’s cognitive operations. Cooper also argues that formal operational thinking is needed to make value judgments and understand philosophical theories. Gick’s (2003) work on cognition and business decision making also adds support for the use of cognitive operations in Producer Mindset. Haidt’s (2014) metaphorical elephant (the instinctive operations) and the rider (cognitive operations) help students visualize and conceptualize the differences and relationship between the two.
The Production of Reactions, Actions, Feelings, and Thoughts
Kahneman (2011) reports that the mere exposure to stimuli (e.g. words, images) (inputs) affects our thinking, sensations, emotions, and decision-making processes. Producer Mindset follows Kahneman’s lead and states that the mere exposure to inputs results in the instinctive (“I”) and cognitive (“C”) operations producing reactions, actions, feelings, and thoughts (RAFTs) relative to the inputs.
Producer Mindset provides a schemata (mental model) to help students discuss and observe how a decision maker produces +/-RAFTs for ethical situations (inputs): [Mental models for ethics instruction are discussed by Brock, et al., 2008.]
Inputs à Human Producer’s I/C à+/- RAFTs
Students are informed that the production of RAFTs happens in three stages:
Stage 1) The inputs are encountered and identified (e.g., any daily situation, a specific ethical situation, an ethical dilemma, an ethical theory);
Stage 2) The human producer’s “I” and “C” assess the inputs for a level of threat or contribution to the human producer’s survival and flourishing. The assessment involves “I” and “C” utilizing past information (inputs) that corresponds to the current inputs;
Stage 3) RAFTs are produced. If “I” assesses a threat (contribution) it produces a negative (positive) reaction, action, feeling (RAF) toward the current inputs. “I” can also produce an ambivalent (no-big-deal) RAF. Likewise, if “C” assesses a threat (contribution) it produces a negative (positive) thought (T) toward the current inputs; “C” can also produce an ambivalent (no-big-deal) (T). [**Students are given a written exercise to report how their “I” and “C” produce RAFTs for various inputs in their own life situations (see Appendix A).]
The mental model’s three stages are compatible with Garrigan’s and Langdon’s (2018) use of Crick’s and Dodge’s (1994) six step social information processing theory [1) encoding of cues; 2) interpretation of cues; 3) clarification of goals; 4) response access or construction; 5) response decision; and 6) behavioral enactment] to build their Social Information Processing-Moral Decision-Making framework for situational factors and how cognitive and affective processes guide moral decisions. Furthermore, the mental model’s three stages satisfy Schwartz’s (2016) proposal that more must to be done to construct integrated ethical decision making models that combine mental processes of emotion, intuition, reason, rationalization, and the active process of consultation.
The mental model gives students a way to look at a decision maker’s motivation and intent behind an ethical or unethical action. Earl is producing an output of an ethical violation that financially harms a few of the company’s clients. What inputs are involved in Earl’s “I” and “C” assessment of a threat (contribution) to produce a RAFT that harms clients?
Often discussed is the sequence of reactions, actions, feelings, and thoughts. Is it always RàAàFàT? When might it be RàFàTàA or TàRàFàA or FàAàRàT? May (2019) provides an overview of the sequential relationships between the cognitive and non-cognitive contribution to moral decision making. The acronym RAFT is used because it resonates the notion that mature and ethical reactions, actions, feelings, and thoughts “carry” one over troubled waters.
An Illustration
The earlier example of the actual input-output for study habits and good grades [Inputs (good study habits) à Human Producer à Outputs (good grades)] illustrates the mental model’s three stage production of RAFTs. Applying the mental model to the student’s personal involvements (e.g., study habits) is a way to help students see how general rules may be transferred to their particular context (see Nyberg, 2007). Stage 1: The need to study for an exam is the student’s currently identified input. Stage 2: To assess the input, the student’s “I” and “C” utilizes past experiences (inputs) that correspond to studying. The assessment will determine the current input’s threat or contribution to survival and flourishing. Stage 3: If past inputs were assessed to have greater contributions than threats, the current need to study (input) will likely be assessed as a contribution and result in “I” and “C” producing a positive RAFT (student will study). Negative RAFTs are produced if past inputs had greater threats than contribution (student will not study).
Furthermore, because input-output chains have outputs that become inputs, getting good grades become the identified current input for the output of passing the course. Here, the student’s “I” and “C” will utilize past inputs relative to producing good grades to assess the threat or contribution level for the current input of producing a good grade in the course. A positive or negative assessment will result in the production of a positive or negative RAFT for producing good grades, which, in turn, is an input in the production of passing the course, or not. Also, note the simultaneous effects: the +/-RAFT for studying is an input for producing good grades and the +/-RAFT for producing good grades is an input for studying.
The Importance of Memory in the Production of RAFTs
In Stage 2 of the mental model, “I” and “C” utilize past inputs to produce RAFTs for currently identified inputs. The human producer’s memory contains the past inputs and the +/-RAFTs for those inputs that “I” and “C” utilize to produce +/-RAFTs for current inputs. [Information systems are treated as external hard drives for the human producer’s memory.] In order to help students visualize and understand how “I” and “C” utilize memory to assess current inputs and produce +/-RAFTs for those inputs, students are instructed to view memory as vectors. In short, the brain-mind produces a vector for each person, place, thing, and idea the student has encountered in life. Each vector contains all of the past inputs from/about the person, place, thing, and idea and the +/-RAFTs produced for those inputs. Vectors are supported by Gick’s (2003) excellent summary of Hayek’s (1988) work on the mind attributing classifications to groups of stimuli and the categories of individualism that contain the ideas of moral rules, legal rules, and customs by which ethical behaviors are shaped. Vectors also satisfy Hayek’s concept of dispositions (i.e., +/-RAFTs) being the use of categories to respond to stimuli (inputs). Hayek’s “immanent criticism” is pointing to how vectors grow in number and depth (i.e., more vectors storing more inputs and +/-RAFTs) which results in the development of society and new rules. Vectors can also be seen in Ergas’ (2020) work on mindfulness for education and a cosmopolitanism which views the myriad of “manifestations of life” (vectors) as part of social narratives that shape our identities.
Vectors and Self-Reflection
An important aspect of moral identity and ethical decision making is self-reflection. When one reflects upon the world, one is essentially reflecting upon their vectors which contain the stored inputs and +/-RAFTs for people, places, things, and ideas. Reflecting upon oneself involves the ME Vector (the ME Vector contains all +/-RAFTs one has had for oneself). This resonates with Hansen’s (2014) conception of “bearing witness” and a cosmopolitanism that one should “see oneself as a participant in a larger moral world than that which one inherits from local culture.” Gu and Neesham (2014) positions self-reflection as a cornerstone of adding moral identity to teaching ethics. Though Pool (2018) is exploring the need for self-reflection in nursing research, her discussion of phenomenological self-reflection informs the use of vectors in moral identity and ethical decision making.
Vectors are also supported by Ergas’ (2020) view of there being two loci in space to which we can possibly attend: “out” (visual, auditory, olfactory, and tactile stimuli from external sources) or “in” (our vectors). Hence, in conjunction with moral identity and learning ethical ideas, students are informed that self-reflecting on the “out” involves reflecting upon +/-RAFTs one is currently producing for inputs from/about people, places, things, and ideas. On the other hand, self-reflecting on the “in” involves reflecting upon +/-RAFTs stored in one’s ME Vector (reflecting on oneself) and/or reflecting upon +/-RAFTs stored in our vectors for people, places, things, and ideas.
Because of the importance of vectors in the production of RAFTs, Producer Mindset’s schemata (mental model) is modified to:
Inputs à Human Producer’s I/C via Vectors à RAFTs
[**Vector Exercises for Students]
Producer Mindset’s vectors (especially, the ME Vector) facilitates moral identity and sense-making in ethical situations. To impress this upon students, thought exercises are utilized. Students are to select a long standing vector (e.g., Mommy Vector, Daddy Vector, Grandma Vector, or ME Vector) and think about how +/-RAFTs produced for the inputs stored in the vector have affected their life. Another thought exercise is to have students think about their future. Here, students think about how their +/-RAFTs for current inputs and the many vectors storing past +/-RAFTs can affect their future. These metacognitive exercises help students think about how +/-RAFTs stored in vectors influence their thinking about personal and business situations and ethical decision making (see Pintrich, 2002 and Cheruvalath, 2019 for a discussion of metacognition and ethical thinking).
Producer Mindset and Ethical Decision Making
There are four stages generally recognized in ethical decision-making (moral issue recognition, moral evaluation/judgment, moral intention, and moral behavior (see Jones, 1991). May and Paul (2002) present a deeper look at the relationships among moral intensity and the first three stages. Producer Mindset captures much of the theoretical and conceptual work on the four stages. The moral issue recognition stage is captured in the mental model’s identification the current issue’s inputs. The moral evaluation/judgment stage relates to how “I” and “C” accesses stored inputs from the vectors related to the current issue. “I” and “C” can also assess an issue by accessing stored inputs in vectors for learned deontological and teleological ideas. Moral intention and behavior stages are captured in the “I” and “C” output of +/-RAFTs.
May and Paul (2002) look at how moral intensity deals with six characteristics of the moral issue itself. Producer Mindset relates to each of the characteristics in the following way: 1) harm and benefit consequences (i.e., this is the +/-RAFT); 2) degree of good (evil) of the act (i.e., this also is determined with the +/-RAFT); 3) likelihood of the act taking place and its harm (benefits) (i.e., the likelihood of the input and +/-RAFTs relative to the outputs); 4) length of time for consequences to occur (i.e., the time between the input and the outputs); 5) closeness of moral agent to victims or beneficiaries (i.e., how close is the human producer to the other human producers who are the victims or beneficiaries); and 6) the number of people affected by the act (i.e., number of other human producers involved with the inputs).
Consequently, the four stages generally recognized in ethical decision-making, and the six characteristics of moral intensity support applying Producer Mindset to specific ethical decision making in business (e.g., noxious markets, bluffing, deceptive advertising, downsizing, pricing policies, employee loyalty, boycotting, CSR, negative externalities).
Deceptive advertising illustrates how Producer Mindset is applied in looking at business decisions. The identified inputs are the attention features of the ad. Students self-reflect on their own +/-RAFTs produced by their “I” and “C” assessing the inputs. Students speculate about the +/-RAFTs the decision maker’s “I” and “C” produced for the ad and for the increased revenues from the ad. Next, students speculate about the +/-RAFTs the “I” and “C” of the target market (human producers) produced for the deceptive ad’s inputs, for the product in the ad, and any post-purchase reactions to the product.
The trolley car problem illustrates the application of Producer Mindset to stylized ethical dilemmas (see Thomson, 1976).
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the tracks. Ahead are five people tied up and unable to move. You’re are standing some distance off, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You can either pull the level to save the five people or do nothing, which kills the one person.
In addition to applying a utilitarian view, moral obligations, or varying the demographics of the six people, Producer Mindset’s mental model can be utilized as an ethical decision making tool. The trolley car problem itself is treated as an input and each student self-reflects upon how their “I” and “C” will access vectors to produce +/-RAFTs. In keeping with Gu’s and Neesham’s (2014) moral identity prescriptions, this allows each student to look at their own vectors (e.g., value Vectors, belief Vectors, Vectors for people, media Vectors) and how their “I” and “C” access the vectors to produce +/-RAFTs for the trolley car problem itself. Students can see themselves as each of the six people (Producers) and speculate as to how each Producer’s Inputs à Human Producer’s I/C via Vectors à RAFT might operate after a switch choice.
Producer Mindset and Understanding Business Ethics Theories
The Producer Mindset framework is a critical-thinking tool to help students produce a deeper understanding of rule-base ethical theories. For this effort, the three steps of the actual input-output model and the three stage of the mental model are modified into the following three questions: 1) Who are the human producers? 2) What are the actual and desired outputs (including RAFTs) for the human producers? 3) What inputs and work of “I” and “C” will produce the outputs (including RAFTs)? In his argument for the inclusion of sociological thinking in business ethics, Brinkmann’s (2019) deviance, social roles, and power suggest something similar to the three questions. [**Students are given an exercise to incorporate the three steps in their own life situations (see Appendix A).]
The course syllabus includes Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, the utilitarianism of John S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham, and social contract theory. The three questions are applied to study each ethical theory. For expediency, only Kant’s categorical imperative and Rawls’ social contract are illustrated.
Producer Mindset and Kant’s Categorical Imperative
Kant’s Inquiring Murderer (see McCarty, 2012) is instructive in looking at Kant’s imperatives: 1) act only according to that maxim by which you would be willing it should become a universal law and 2) act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an ends and never as a means to an end only. Students picture themselves standing on a street corner. Along comes the Innocent Victim who runs up to the student and says “help, the Inquiring Murderer is after me, I am going to hide in your house.” Off he goes. The Inquiring Murderer then runs up to the student and says, “Did you see the Innocent Victim, and where did he go?” To lie would breach Kant’s categorical imperative. To tell the truth would allow the Inquiring Murderer to harm another human to satisfy some desired ends. The following are examples of how the three questions are answered:
Who are the producers? The student, the Innocent Victim, and Inquiring Murderer.
What are the desired outputs? The Inquiring Murderer’s desired output is to kill the Innocent Victim. The Innocent Victim’s desired output is to live. Each student’s desired output is to save the Innocent Victim. The question remains “ought the students lie?” In lieu of answering, students discuss their “I” and “C” production of negative RAFTs for the Inquiring Murder and positive RAFTs for saving the Innocent Victim. They also talk about their production of RAFTs for Kant’s insistence that they unconditionally never lie to the Inquiring Murderer. Throughout the conversation, students connect their Inputs à Human Producer’s I/C via Vectors à RAFT with the Kantian absolute moral rules choice (i.e., don’t lie versus don’t kill the innocent or use people as a means to an ends).
What inputs will produce the outputs? The case does not give the background (i.e., vectors) of the Inquiring Murderer or the Innocent Victim. Student speculate as to the stored inputs in the vectors influencing the Inquiring Murderer’s “I” and “C” to produce such a negative RAFT towards the Innocent Victim. Relative to the students’ produced desired output to save the Innocent Victim, the students discuss the inputs that would disrupt the Inquiring Murderer desired outputs (e.g., hide the victim, call the police, say nothing, or play dumb).
As an act of self-reflection, students treat as an input the absolute moral rules choice idea itself and explore how their own vectors (e.g., beliefs and values) influence their “I” and “C” to produce RAFTs about the case. Students think about their RAFTs in firsthand experiences with people who lie and use others as a means to an end. This helps overcome the lack of personal involvement in the transfer of a general (ethical) rule to a particular context (Nyberg, 2007).
Producer Mindset and Social Contract Theory
In general, social contract theory says we ought to follow the rules that rational self-interested people would agree to follow for their mutual benefit. To put social contract theory in context, Thomas Hobbes (1904) imagines humanity began in the state of nature where all humans are basically equal in power, there are no rules, no morality, and humans live in continual fear of violent death. Applying Inputs à Human Producer’s I/C via Vectors à RAFT, students conclude that Hobbes empowers “I” over “C” and that humans assess all inputs as threats to survival, resulting in the production of negative RAF (reactions, actions, and feelings). But, we leave the state of nature and form a social contract on the premise that it is in our own self-interest to do so. Now, students see a shift to “C” operating much more in the assessing inputs and producing rules (thoughts) that rational self-interested people would agree to follow for their mutual benefit. To give students a concrete form of social contract, John Rawls’ distributive justice theory (1971) is examined. Rawls argues that to achieve an effective social contract we need to make rules under a “veil of ignorance.” Under this veil we do not know our economic, educational, political, or social status. Because we might be in the lowest or least desirable position in society, our rational self-interest will make rules for our mutual benefit. The following are examples of how the three questions are answered:
Who are the producers? Under social contract theory all members of society are human producers.
What are the desired outputs?
To avail our rational self-interest to produce rules for the mutual survival and flourishing of all the human producers.
What inputs will produce the outputs?
Operating under the veil of ignorance, the vectors that identify the human producer’s economic, education, political, or social status are removed from “C” assessing pertinent information (inputs) to make rules. Also, before the veil, people have vectors for others not like them that influence decision making. Vectors for people who are not like me may contain past inputs assessed by “I” and “C” as threats to survival and flourishing and given negative RAFTs. Hence, before the veil, my vectors for the people who are not like me and I don’t identify with, will likely interfere with my “C” producing thoughts (rules) that are unbiased. Under the veil, the vectors that identify me and others cease to affect “C’s” assessment of inputs and production of RAFTs for social issues. Furthermore, the veil of ignorance removes the self-interest of consumerism that commodifies us, makes us unduly competitive with one another, and influences desires for material possessions. Also, note how applying the Producer Mindset to talk about the veil of ignorance is an act of personal involvement in the transfer of a general (ethical) rule to a particular context (Nyberg, 2007).
A Critique of Business Ethics Pedagogy
Producer Mindset can be applied to undertake a close reading of the extant pedagogical literature for teaching business ethics. We selected three articles that represent the broad spectrum of business ethics teaching approaches. The following illustrations show how Producer Mindset could be incorporated into other approaches to teaching business ethics.
Producer Mindset and the Case for Moral Psychology
Jonathan Haidt (2014) argues for business schools to be more realistic about human psychology and the limits of human reasoning. Metaphorically, Haidt wants us to see the mind in terms of a small rider sitting on the back of a very large elephant. The rider is our conscious reasoning while the elephant is our automatic and unconscious intuition, emotions, and habits (which Haidt sees as being 99% of what goes on in the mind). Ethics classes are aimed at the rider. However, the elephant takes over the rider’s conscious reasoning when confronted with ethical situations and dilemmas. The elephant decides which way to go and the rider, instead of using ethical theories, finds self-serving justifications and appropriate arguments for the elephant’s behaviors.
Haidt’s elephant is Producer Mindset’s “I” producing positive or negative reaction, actions, and feelings (RAFs). Haidt’s rider is Producer Mindset’s “C” that produces thoughts (“T”). Haidt is concerned that business ethics classes provide many ethical theory vectors that inform “C” but little is done to provide moral identity vectors and a self-reflection process to move “C” beyond simply producing thoughts to rationalize, justify, describe, and/or give meaning to “I’s” produced RAFs. Haidt wants business ethics instructors to get the “C” of students in the habit and practice of accessing vectors filled with virtues, ethics, professionalism, and trust to train the elephant (“I”). On the other hand, Haidt wants to dissuade vectors related to consumerism and the consumer mindset that promote ideas like winning by any means necessary.
Producer Mindset and the Case for Moral Identity
Gu and Neesham (2014) see teaching rule-based ethics as being prescriptive and playing a negligible role in ethical development and changing the ethical attitudes of business students. They argue for an identity-based ethics training called moral identity theory. Stephens (2018) proposes that the students’ inability to see themselves as moral persons leads to cognitive dissonance and emotional discomfort; a condition described as the judgment-action gap in moral functioning (also see Blasi, 1980; Sweeney, et. al., 2015; Maclagan 2012; Schmidt et al. 2013).
Gu and Neesham want to close the “gap” by teaching students to identify themselves as moral persons through a series of self-reflective exercises while also introducing non-rule based ethical theories like virtue ethics and ethics of care. They found that this improves the students’ ability to identify the “good” or “right” ethical choices on their own.
Applying Producer Mindset, students are taught “moral identity” by way of self-reflecting while, at the same time, developing vectors for virtue ethics and vectors for ethics of care. As presented earlier, this entails raising two questions: 1) How should I react, act, feel, and think about the +/-RAFTs I’ve produced for person X, place X, thing X, or idea X? and 2) How should I react, act, feel, and think about the +/-RAFTs I’ve produced for myself? Both questions enhance the student’s ability to identify the “good” or “right” ethical choices and helps overcome the cognitive dissonance and emotional discomfort of the judgment-action gap in moral functioning.
Producer Mindset and the Case for Meditation
In order to produce the "ethical person," La Forge (1997) wants to include in business ethics teaching non-discursive and discursive meditation. Non-discursive meditation is the observation of the inner and outer self with no attempt at logical thought. The outer self consists of the actual inputs stored in vectors for specific people, places, things, and ideas. The inner self is considered the ME Vector. This is Ergas’ (2020) “out” (outer self) and “in” (inner self). Producer Mindset gives students insight into how non-discursive meditation involves simply observing reactions, actions, and feelings produced by “I” (i.e., Inputs à Human Producer’s “I” via Vectors à RAFs) without “C” producing justifications, rationalizations, descriptions, and/or meanings for the RAFs. Hence, non-discursive mediation essentially reduces or stops “C’s” production of thoughts (i.e., stopping the voice-in-the-head).
On the other hand, discursive meditation entails using logical thought, conscious awareness, and the faculties of the imagination. To this, the features of the Producer Mindset framework (Inputs à Human Producer’s I/C via Vectors à RAFT) facilitate discursive meditation. La Forge proposes that various ethical theories be introduced to allow students to determine how to apply codes of ethical conduct to produce ethical decisions for themselves and others. He calls this the production of the “ethical person.” Producer Mindset’s three questions (Who are the Producers? What are the desired outputs? What inputs will produce the outputs?) can be considered acts of independent discursive meditation. The Producer Mindset framework also promotes discursive meditation by helping students discern how their behaviors (i.e., +/-RAFTs) might be harming others. This entails the empathetic act of “looking through the eyes of another” (i.e., another human producer’s Inputs à Human Producer’s I/C use of Vectors à RAFT). Though Ohren (2013) and Songhorian (2019) see limits to teaching empathy in business ethics education, Holt, et al., (2017) provides a review of the literature on empathy and educating business leaders and their study builds a case for the importance of empathy in business environments.
Teaching Business Ethics Before and After Producer Mindset
The lead author started teaching business ethics in the fall semester of 2012. The materials for the class included The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James and Stuart Rachels (2010) and a series of professional business ethics articles. The goal was to teach students (mostly freshmen) how to identify business ethics issues and apply ethical theories to common business ethics situations and issues. Though students were memorizing the material and producing good grades, they were not fully understanding the theories, recognizing the reasons for the theories, nor applying the theories to their personal situations. Because each ethical theory had its own particular language and intellectual platform, students had a hard time relating theories.
In the fall semester of 2014, I was introduced to Producer Mindset. I immediately saw its potentials as a framework to teach any ethical theory and a way to help students better apply the ethical theories to business situations and daily life. I realized how crucial mindsets are to quality of learning. The idea of replacing consumer mindset with Producer Mindset was appealing. The Producer Mindset fit my desired outputs to have students better understand ethical theories, cognitively engage ethical theories, and articulate their perceptions and opinions about ethical issues and situations. Though Producer Mindset could be used with any textbook, I currently use Vopat and Tomhave (2018), which I find is an easier fit for teaching Producer Mindset.
Producer Mindset made it easier for students to see how all humans are producers connected by their Inputs à Human Producer’s I/C via Vectors à RAFT. It was easier to teach how ethical theories are unified and integrated. It was easier to discuss difficult ideas like deontology and utilitarianism and get students to independently think through seemingly counterintuitive arguments of major ethical theories. It was easier for students to intellectually navigate topics like capitalism, socialism, corporate social responsibility, environmental concerns, and boycotting. Also, to reinforce the idea that humans have intrinsic values and should be treated impartially, I refer to students as producers (not consumers). I eliminate the typical categories of Mr., Miss, Mrs., Ms., Dr., Atty., or Professor, instead all students, including myself are referred to as Pr. (for producer).
Student Testimonials
Since the introduction of Producer Mindset, I’ve taught 33 business ethics classes with an average of 38 students. From the beginning, the vast majority of students produced positive RAFTs. For record purposes, at the end of each term students are given an option to write about their RAFTs toward Producer Mindset. Of the 1,275 students, approximately 90% responded. Many students who were initially “naysayers” converted and responded favorably. One student reported seeing himself as a producer and understanding the ME Vector made him quit smoking. Another student said after practicing how RAFTs are produced by “I” and “C”, he no longer could listen to the “unproductive rhetoric” of his peers. Another student observed “Producer Mindset helps make ethical situations easier to analyze and understand… it eliminates the need to know every ethical theory.” Along these same lines, a student “found that I have a lot more patience in dealing with people…. I am able to treat them fairly, despite the situation.” One student even offered changing the definition of utilitarianism to maximizing Producer Mindset and minimizing consumer mindset. Many students have reported that it motivated them to produce more positive RAFTs towards education. Several students, directly and indirectly, suggested that Producer Mindset’s mental model and the three questions for ethical theories can be incorporated into any academic subject matter and that Producer Mindset should be a general requirement. (Appendix B provides a sample of the most common testimonials).
Summary
The current dominant consumer mindset is wrongheaded, interferes with effective business ethics teaching, and should be replaced with a mindset corresponding to the fact that humans are Producers who possess many biological and neurological production systems and live in a dynamic world of production systems. This paper presents Producer Mindset and proposes that it be taught before students are exposed to business ethics theories and ideas.
We constructed Producer Mindset with a number of self-imposed evaluative criteria. The initial set of criteria was that it adhere to the objectives for rule-based ethical teaching, be easy to integrate in business ethics theories, and be appropriate for first year freshman students. Both the input-output model and the mental model (Inputs à Human Producer’s I/C via Vectors à RAFT) reduced complex neuroscience and psychology. Throughout the paper, we demonstrated how Producer Mindset is a critical thinking tool utilized to learn and intelligently discuss ethical decision making, rule-based ethical theories, and relationships among ethical theories.
The second set of criteria is to account for framing, emotion regulation, forecasting, self-reflection, and information integration (see Brock, et al. 2008; Weick, 1995). For framing, Producer Mindset replaces the improper consumer mindset. The framework’s mental model (especially, the “I” and “C” access of vectors) gives students insight into how their emotions are produced and impact decision making. Relative to Ergas’ (2020) view of there being two loci in space to which we can possibly attend (“in” and “out”), the mental model helps students understand and undertake self-reflection. The mental model, by design, integrates the brain-mind’s cognitive (“C”) and intuitive (“I”) operations with ethical decision making, ethical theory analysis, and ethical dilemma analysis. Though not designed for forecasting, the model can be used to critically evaluate likely outcomes (i.e., +/-RAFTs).
Another criterion is that the framework had to have a metacognition feature that gives students a way to think about the way they think (Berardi-Coletta, et al., 1995). This was clearly illustrated under sections titled “Vector Exercises for Students” and “Producer Mindset and the Case for Moral Identity.”
Another criterion required bridging the judgment-action gap that disconnects learning ethics from actual application to decision situations (Blasi, 1980; Sweeney, et. al., 2015). The section titled “Producer Mindset and the Case for Moral Identity” addresses how Producer Mindset addresses the difficult judgment-action gap. Also, the section titled “Producer Mindset and Social Contract Theory”, which utilizes Producer Mindset to talk about social contract theory, demonstrates the personal involvement in the transfer of a general (ethical) rule to a particular context.
Finally, Producer Mindset had to be a practical and consistent format to study business ethics. Cooper (1985) states that students should have a concrete reason for learning (ethics) and a context within which to place the newly learned knowledge. In addition to students seeing that the mental model (Inputs à Human Producer’s I/C via Vectors à RAFT) is contextual, practical, and a consistent format, they are given three questions to attain deeper understanding of ethical theories and issues: 1) Who are the producers? 2) What are the actual and desired outputs (including RAFTs)? 3) What inputs and work of “I” and “C” will produce the outputs (including RAFTs)?
References
Argyle, M. (2017), Social Interaction: Process and Products, 2nd Edition, London: Routledge.
Barber, B. (2007), Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole, New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Barbouta, A., Barbouta, C. and Kotrotsiou,S. (2020), “Growth Mindset and Grit: How Do University Students’ Mindsets and Grit Affect their Academic Achievement? International Journal of Caring Sciences, 13(1): pp. 654-665.
Baron, J. (2018), “Tech Ethics Issues We Should All Be Thinking About in 2019”, Forbes article, (27 December). Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessicabaron/2018/12/27/tech-ethics-issues-we-should-all-be-thinking-about-in-2019/?sh=6db100fc4b21.
Begley, T. M. and D. P. Boyd (2003), “The Need for a Corporate Global MindSet”, MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(2): pp. 25–33.
Benson, J. and Dresdow, S. (2003), “Discovery Mindset: A Decision-Making Model for Discovery and Collaboration”, Management Decision 41(10): pp. 997–1005.
Berardi-Coletta, B., Buyer, L. S., Dominowski, R. L., & Rellinger, E. R. (1995), “Metacognition and Problem Solving: A Process-Oriented Approach”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21: pp. 205–223.
Blasi, A. (1980), “Bridging Moral Cognition and Moral Action: A Critical Review of the Literature”. Psychological Bulletin, 88: pp. 1–45.
Bunce, L., Baird, A. and Jones, S. E. (2016), “The Student-as-Consumer Approach in Higher Education and its Effects on Academic Performance”, Studies in Higher Education, 42(11): pp. 1-21.
Brinkmann, J. (2019), “The Potential Use of Sociological Perspectives for Business Ethics Teaching”, Journal of Business Ethics, 156(2): 273-187.
Brock, M. E., Vert S., Kligyte, V., Waples, E. P., Sevier, S. T., and Mumford, M. D. (2008), “Mental Models: An Alternative Evaluation of a Sensemaking Approach to Ethics Instruction”, Science and Engineering Ethics, 14: pp. 449–472.
Cameron, C. D., & Payne, B. K. (2012), “The Cost of Callousness: Regulating Compassion Influences the Moral Self-Concept”, Psychological Science, 23(3): pp. 225–229.
Cheruvalath, R. (2019), “Does Studying ‘Ethics’ Improve Engineering Students’ Meta-Moral Cognitive Skills?”, Science and Engineering Ethics, 25 (2): pp. 583-596.
Cooper, D. E. (1985), “Cognitive Development and Teaching Business Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, 4 (4): pp. 313-329.
Crick, N. R. and Dodge, K. A. (1994), “A Review and Reformulation of Social Information-Processing Mechanisms in Children's Social Adjustment”, Psychological Bulletin, 115(1): pp. 74-101.
Damasio, A. (2001), “Fundamental Feelings”, Nature, article (25 October), 413: pp. 781.
Damasio, A. (2018), The Strange Order of Things: Life, Feeling, and the Making of Cultures, New York: Pantheon Books.
Dedeke. A. (2015), “A Cognitive-Intuitionist Model of Moral Judgment”, Journal of Business Ethics, 126: pp. 437–457.
Dweck, C. S. (2006), Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, New York: Ballantine Books.
Ergas, O. (2020), “Education and Cosmopolitanism: Liberating Our Non-Cosmopolitan Minds Through Mindfulness”, Policy Futures in Education, 18(5): pp. 610–627.
Finney, T., and Finney, R. (2010), “Are Students Their Universities’ Customers? An Exploratory Study.” Education and Training, 52 (4): pp. 276–91.
French, R. P. (2016), “The Fuzziness of Mindsets: Divergent Conceptualizations and Characterizations of Mindset Theory and Praxis”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 24(4): pp. 673–691.
Friedman, M. (1985), “The Changing Language of a Consumer Society: Brand Name Usage in Popular American Novels in the Post war Era”, Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4): pp. 927-938.
Garrigan, B. and Langdon, P. (2018), “Moral Decision-Making and Moral Development: Toward an Integrative Framework”, Developmental Review, 49: pp. 80-100
Gaudine, A. and Thorne, L. (2001), “Emotion and Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations”, Journal of Business Ethics, 31(2): pp. 175-187.
Giacalone, R. A. and Promislo, M. D. (2013), “Broken When Entering: The Stigmatization of Goodness and Business Ethics Education”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(1): pp. 86-101.
Gibson, A. (2011), “Ideas and Practices in the Critique of Consumerism”, Environmental Philosophy, 8(2): pp. 171-188.
Gick, E. (2003), “Cognitive Theory and Moral Behavior: The Contribution of F. A. Hayek to Business Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, 45: pp. 140-165.
Gosling, J. and Mintzberg, H. (2003), “The Five Minds of a Manager”, Harvard Business Review 81(11): pp. 54–63.
Gu, J. and Neesham, C. (2014), “Moral Identity as Leverage Point in Teaching Business Ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, 124: pp. 527-536.
Guilbault, M. (2018) “Students as Customers in Higher Education: The (Controversial) Debate Needs to End”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40: pp. 295-298.
Gunn, B. and Gullickson, B. R. (2005), “MindSet”, Strategic Finance 87(3): pp. p8.
Grineski, S. (2000), “I’ve a Feeling We’re Not in Kansas Anymore”: The Commercialization and Commodification of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education”, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 20(1): pp. 19-28.
Habermas, J. (1975), Legitimation Crisis, McCarthy, T. (Trans.), Boston: Beacon Press.
Haidt, J. (2004), “The Emotional Dog gets Mistaken for a Possum”, Review of General Psychology, 8: pp. 283–290.
Haidt, J. (2014), “Can You Teach Businessmen to be Ethical?” Washington Post article (13 January), Available at http:/www.washingtonpost.com/stories/2014/1/13.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., & May, D. R. (2011), “Moral Maturation and moral Conation: A Capacity Approach to Explaining Moral Thought and Action”, Academy of Management Review, 36(4): pp. 663–685.
Hansen, D. (2014), “Cosmopolitanism as Cultural Creativity: New Modes of Educational Practice in Globalizing Times”, Curriculum Inquiry, 44(1): pp. 1–14.
Hayek, F. A. (1988), The Fatal Conceit, London: Routledge.
Haynes, C. J. (2009), “Holistic Human Development”, Journal of Adult Development, 16: pp. 53-60.
Hinton, D. (2014), Analects by Confucius, Berkeley: Counterpoint Press.
Hobbes, T. (1904), Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme & Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civill, Edited by Waller, A. R. Cambridge: University Press.
Holt, S., Marques, J., Hu, J., and Wood, A. (2017), “Cultivating Empathy: New Perspectives on Education Business Leaders”, The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 10(1), Available at https://doi.org/10.22543/0733.101.1173.
Inada, Y. (2020), “The Impact of Higher Education Entrepreneurship Practical Courses: Developing an Entrepreneurial Mindset”, Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 22(8): pp. 161-176.
Issa, T. and Pick, D. (2010), “Ethical Mindsets: An Australian Study”, Journal of Business Ethics, 96(4): pp. 613–629.
Jacob, M. (2003), “Rethinking Science and Commodifying Knowledge”, Policy Futures in Education, 1(1): pp. 125-142.
Jones, T. M. (1991), “Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model”, Academy of Management Review, 16: pp. 366-395.
Jonson, E. P., McGuire, L. and Cooper, B. (2016), “Does Teaching Ethics Do Any Good?” Education + Training, 58 (4): pp. 439-454.
Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Klein, J. I. (1991), “A Theory of Partial Systems: Implications for Organizational Effectiveness”, Behavioral Science, 36 (3) pp. 224-237.
Kohlberg, L. (1973), “The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgment”, The Journal of Philosophy, 70(18): pp. 630-646.
Korzybski, A. (1949), Science and Sanity, 3rd Edition, Lakeviile, CT: The International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Co.
La Forge, P. G. (1997), “Teaching Business Ethics Through Meditation”, Journal of Business Ethics, 16: pp. 1283-1295.
Leontief, W. W. (1966), Input-Output Economics, New York: Oxford University Press.
Li, Y. and Bates, T. C. (2020), “Testing the Association of Growth Mindset and Grades Across a Challenging Transition: Is Growth Mindset Associated with Grades?” Intelligence, 81: pp. 1-8.
Lin, L. (2020), “An Evaluation System and Its Model for Educational Competitiveness of Universities”, International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 15(11): pp. 188-201.
Lovelock, J. (1979), Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford University Press.
Maclagan, P. (2012), “Conflicting Obligations, Moral Dilemmas and the Development of Judgement Through Business Ethics Education”, Business Ethics: A European Review, 21(2): pp. 183–197.
May J. (2019), “Précis of Regard for Reason in the Moral Mind”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42(146): pp. 1–60.
Mason, M. (2007), “Critical Thinking and Learning”, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(4): pp. 339-349.
May, D., R. and Paul, K. P. (2002), “ The Role of Moral Intensity in Ethical Decision Making: A Review and Investigation of Moral Recognition, Evaluation, and Intention”, Business & Society, 41(1): pp. 84-117.
McCarty, R. (2012), “The Right to Lie: Kantian Ethics and the Inquiring Murderer”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 49 (4): pp. 331-343.
Mills, I. M. and Mills, B. S. (2018), “Insufficient Evidence: Mindset Intervention in Developmental College Math”, Social Psychology of Education, 21: pp. 1045-1059.
Miller, R. E. and Blair, P. D. (2009), Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions, Second Edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Naidoo, R., and Jamieson. I. (2005), “Empowering Participants or Corroding Learning? Towards a Research Agenda on the Impact of Student Consumerism in Higher Education.” Journal of Education Policy, 20 (3): pp. 267–81.
Newman, M. (2006). Teaching Defiance: Stories and Strategies for Activist Educators, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nyberg, D. (2007), “The Morality of Everyday Activities: Not the Right, But the Good Thing to Do”, Journal of Business Ethics, 81(3): pp. 587–598.
Ohren, D. (2013), “The Limits of Empathy in Business Ethics Education”, Business Ethics Journal Review, 1(18): pp. 113-119.
Parker, (2015), “Five Reasons to Kill the Word ‘Consumer’ Right Now”, Forbes article (8 December). Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2015/12/08/five-reasons-to-kill-the-word-consumer-right-now/.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006), Critical Thinking Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Publishing.
Piaget, J. (1932), The Moral Judgment of the Child, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002), “The Role of Metacognitive Knowledge in Learning, Teaching, and Assessing”, Theory into Practice, 41(4): pp. 219–225.
Pool, N. (2018), “Looking Inward: Philosophical and Methodological Perspectives on Phenomenological Self-Reflection”, Nursing Science Quarterly, 31(3): pp. 245-252.
Rachels, J and Rachels. S. (2012), The Elements of Moral Philosophy, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Ritzer, G. and Esposti, P. D. (2020), “The increasing Centrality of Prosumption in the Digital Capitalist Economy”, Osterreichische Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, 45(3):351-369.
Schmidt, C. D., Davidson, K. M., & Adkins, C. (2013), “Applying What Works: A Case for Deliberate Psychological Education in Undergraduate Business Ethics”, Journal of Education for Business, 88(3): pp. 127–135.
Schwartz, M. S. (2016), “Ethical Decision-Making Theory: An Integrated Approach”, Journal of Business Ethics, 139: pp. 755-776.
Schwartz, M. S. (2017), “Teaching Behavioral Ethics: Overcoming the Key Impediments to Ethical Behavior”, Journal of Management Education, 41(4): pp. 497–513.
Schwartzman, R. (2013), “Consequences of Commodifying Education”, Academic Exchange
Quarterly, 17(3): pp. 41-46.
Senn, F. R. (2019), “Can’t Buy Me Love: Commodification and Redemption in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s ‘The Popular Girl’”, Interdisciplinary Literary Studies, 21(2): pp. 150-172.
Snipes, J., F. C. and Stoker, G. (2012), “Student Academic Mindset Interventions: A Review of the Current Landscape”, Supski Foundation (June). Available at http://www.impaq/student-academic-mindset-interventions.
Songhorian, S. (2019), “The Contribution of Empathy to Ethics”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 27(2): pp. 244-264.
Stephens, J. M. (2018), “Bridging the Divide: The Role of Motivation and Self-regulation in Explaining the Judgment-Action Gap Related to Academic Dishonesty”, Frontiers in Psychology, 9: pp. 246-269.
Sweeney, P. J., Imboden, M. W., Hannah, S. T. (2015), “Building Moral Strength: Bridging the Moral Judgment-Action Gap”, New Directions for Student Leadership, 146: pp.17-33.
Tipu, S. A. A. (2015), “The Cognitive Side of Entrepreneurial Ethics: What Do We Still Need to Know?” Journal of Enterprising Culture, 23(1): pp. 117-137.
Tomlinson, M. (2014). Exploring the Impacts of Policy Changes on Student Attitudes to Learning. York: Higher Education Academy.
Tomlinson, M. (2017). “Students’ Perception of Themselves as ‘Consumers’ of Higher Education”, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4): pp. 450-467.
Thomson, J. (1976), “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem”, The Monist, 59(2): pp. 204-217.
Tulviste, P. (2019), “Linguistic and Activity Relativity in Cognition”, Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 56(3-4): pp.215-230.
Velasquez, M. G. (2011), Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
VITELAR, A. (2019), “Like Me: Generation Z and the Use of Social Media for Personal Branding”, Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 7(2): pp. 257-268.
Vopat, M. C. and Tomhave, A. (2018), Business Ethics: The BIG Picture, Ontario, Canada: Broadway Press.
Wang, L. and Murnighan, J. D. (2014), “Money, Emotions, and Ethics Across Individuals and Countries”, Journal of Business Ethics, 125: pp. 163–176.
Warren, H. B. and Stratford, L. M. (2018), “A Producer Mindset as an Alternative to a Consumer Mindset”, in Multifaceted Explorations of Consumer Culture and Its Impact on Individuals and Society, edited by Burns, D. J. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Weick, K. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Williams, J. (2013), Consuming Higher Education: Why Learning Can't be Bought. London: Bloomsbury.
Woodall, T., Hiller, A. and Resnick, S. (2014), “Making Sense of Higher Education: Students as Consumers and the Value of the University Experience.” Studies in Higher Education, 39(1): pp. 48–67.
Yunping, W. (2008), “Confucian Ethics and Emotions”, Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 3(3): pp. 352–365
Appendix A
Producer Mindset Assignment
1. List ten outputs you like producing.
2. Pick two of those outputs and name at least five inputs needed to produce the output.
3. Pick one of your major life situations. Briefly, apply the three producer mindset questions to the situation. Also, briefly, discuss the positive and/or negative RAFTs produced by the producers in the situation.
4. Applying Inputs à Human Producer’s I/C via Vectors à RAFTs, discuss why you chose your major.
5. Meditation or mindfulness often means quieting your chattering voice-in-the-head; especially, “C’s” chattering about negative RAFTs stored in vectors. Select a vector that has stored negative RAFTs. How can you be mindful about the RAFTs? Hint: treat the RAFTs as an input in the mental model.
6. The modern world is filled with information (inputs) via tweets, emails, Facebook, yahoo, google, magazines, newspapers, and other forms of media. Apply Inputs à Human Producer’s I/C via Vectors à RAFTs to any one of these input sources.
Appendix B
Student Testimonials
The following excerpts from student self-reporting are a representative sample of the testimonials about Producer Mindset (PM):
Student 1: From my point of view, PM is an ethical theory which has a common language and is easy to understand and be applied in many different situations or dilemmas. In PM language, people have the deeper view about the inputs and how Vectors, “I”, “C”, and RAFTs are used in the production of outputs. Therefore, PM is helpful in my future personal and professional life because…. it helps maintain highly ethical behaviors when running a business that can provide benefits to all the producers.
Student 2: I believe that PM is a very interesting theory that has caused me to personally rethink a lot of things. I am a very open-minded person, so hearing how others think and ration other's thoughts is intriguing. What I like about PM is that it causes people to look at themselves and reevaluate how they think…. I feel that by learning about PM, I will be a better entrepreneur and boss in the future. I also think more about the things that I do, as well as how it will affect others.
Student 3: I do enjoy learning PM and since I have learned about it, I've been able to understand a lot more about human interactions…. I think it will help me in my future professional life because I am training myself to think of all my actions as inputs to my desired outputs. When you stop in day to day life and pay attention to every action you take, you realize how much time you waste on negative or non-desired outputs.
Student 4: In my professional life, PM will help me focus on producing only good things and I will be able to recognize if I produced a bad output what the inputs were that caused the negative RAFTs.
Student 5: I am currently using it at work. I get to talk to my crew about it when something happens, whether it is between the crew or it has something to do with the products we make.
Student 6: Producer Mindset has helped me recognize that everything I do and every decision I make is a product (output) that I produce…. It has made me more aware that I have control of how I can react to any given input.
Student 7: Because of Producer Mindset I have taken to putting more focus on my mental health.
Student 8: Producer Mindset is an essential condition that provides an important data structure for the prosperous future perspectives.
Student 9: Producer Mindset is an empowering way of thinking. The concept makes a person effective, innovative, and inventive in solving problems.
Student 10: It is vastly useful in understanding the value of oneself and one’s actions and gives people a way in which they can understand their role in the world around them by understanding how they fit into production chain.
Student 11: I’ve found that I have a lot more patience in dealing with people, who before, would have caused me frustration. In viewing every individual as a producer, I am able to treat them fairly, dispite the situation.