Business Ethics and Critical Consultant Jokes

Front matter

SpringerBriefs in Ethics

Onno Bouwmeester

Business Ethics

Preface

Laughing is part of human life. We start laughing quite early in life and we continue to do so. It can help us to cope with life, to better communicate with adolescents, or to create atmosphere among friends. It also helps to connect to people you like, and to disconnect with what you dislike. We can laugh about our own failures, as well as about what others do wrong. We can laugh to criticize as well as to express our sympathy, or both. Laughing can carry ambiguity, and so does joking. Maybe this ambiguity explains why jokes have been very absent in research methods.

The study of ethics is one of the domains of philosophy. While philosophy is considered the mother of science, with links to all scientific disciplines, it has no own empirical research tradition. It can reflect on empirical science, but mainly builds on ideas. While this makes philosophy rather detached from empirics, it still aims to be relevant to life, and this applies to ethics in particular. While logic, deduction, and theorizing might be the preferred methods in philosophy, when it comes to ethics or aesthetics generic logics meet their limits. General moral rules never always apply. We should not kill. But there are still cases where we feel it is justified to do so. We often make exceptions to moral rules, based on ethical deliberation, because we feel these should not apply in some cases. That is also why we need judges next to laws, and why ethics cannot be a rule book. It is why ethical norms are debated and also change over time, and, why sometimes, violating moral rules or expectations can be funny.

Jokes do exactly this: they play with violating norms. Rule-based expectations can be linked to ethics as well as to aesthetics and more. “What is worse than one soprano? Two sopranos’. Or ‘how do you recognize a consultant? He first borrows your watch and then tells you the time’. Reasonable moral or aesthetic expectations are broken in these cases. We expect the consultant to have knowledge and expertise, and the soprano to have skill and splendour, but we recognize they do not always have. As ethics should be able to study both the ethical rules, principles and virtues as well as exceptions and violations, its method cannot be only theoretical. It needs case based, empirical inquiry as well, and good empirical methods are currently underdeveloped in ethics.

vi Preface

This book seeks to show how interpreting jokes can be relevant to the empirical study of business ethics. By connecting traditional social science methods to various uses of jokes, this study offers new methods relevant to the field of business ethics. The jokes-based research methods are demonstrated for the ethics of management consultants, but it could have been another profession as well. Still, consultants provide a good case, because there are many business jokes on consultants who break written and unwritten rules, and the jokes show how. Integrating business jokes in research methods can offer new, rich insights into common moral transgressions, as well as into violated values, virtues and principles in the business context.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands Onno Bouwmeester

Acknowledgements

Some material I build on in the book has been published before. If this is the case, an acknowledgement has been made at the end of the chapter where the material is used. One of the used articles I wrote together with Jelmer Stiekema, and another one with Tessa Kok. Both were students in the master program management consulting, and they wanted to work with jokes-based research methods in their master thesis projects. They have helped me to test and refine two methods, and I have enjoyed these collaborations very much. I also have to mention Oscar Haffmans who was first in collecting consulting jokes for his master thesis to do a content analysis. I build on this initial collection of jokes in the jokes-based articles to come. This is how the seeds of this book idea were planted.

Ruben van Werven was the first to give a friendly review on the current book. He is my co-author in articles not related to this book project. Ruben’s feedback helped me to give better answers on the practical questions related to each of the methods, and to show how these methods have added value compared to more traditional research approaches. My colleague in business ethics Rebecca Ruehle was second to give a friendly review, and her comments helped me to better frame the book as a method book. Findings related to the context of application—consultants and their ethics—provide a secondary contribution, while the method contributions come first. She also made me aware of the different audiences I write for, being a former PhD student in business ethics. For a PhD student it is practical to have all information on one method in the same chapter, which made me move all sections on reviewer comments from the last chapter to the main chapters. This will help any scholarly audience, from ethics to social science scholars, interested in the methods. Third to give a friendly review was Ard-Pieter de Man, a Dutch consultant, university professor and a direct colleague for more than ten years. His main suggestion was to better discuss what kind of research questions the different methods help to answer, and to better show the similarities between the four methods in terms of relevant validity conditions, which resulted in Table 6.2. Finally, two anonymous reviewers helped me the strengthen my argument. First by suggesting relevant references that support my ideas, and second by better addressing the audience of ethics scholars of whom many will be philosophers without any experience in empirical research

Vii vill Acknowledgements methods, and maybe also without a motive to build such experience. I hope to provide them with a motive.

While the book is finished now, the methods certainly are not. I can imagine that those who are going to apply these methods, find ways to improve them further, how to better report them, and how to generate new empirical insights that help us understand ethics better, as well as the cases in which we are challenged.

Contents

1.1 Traditional Studies of Ethical Transgressions in Business .. . 1.1.1 Journalists Reporting on Unethical Business Practices 1.1.2 Academic Studies on Consultants’ Ethics and Their Menos .iccccbbdedededatadatddeedinded babadus 1.2.1 Literature Studies and Ethics is4ious0sacsscaeee cn 1.2.2 Humour Theories and Joking About Unethical PEACE E T E EE eis RG sede oon aed dee 1.2.3. Jokes-Based Research Methods and Research Ethics 13 Outline and Contributions 46.5 c6s.csces curve eideoi gives e e 2b on bee eee he EES EE ee E TTA E he eee

2.3 Application—Ten Business Ethical Transgressions Illustrated 2.3.1 Illustration Method: How to Search and Select Jokes Iustrating the Top Ten .icccccesacsesciaesedands 2.3.2 Illustration Results: A Top Ten of Ethical 2.3.3 Jokes-Based Illustrations and Their Contributions 2.4.1 Jokes Can Illustrate Common Unethical Business Bnei aco cede os E S T kent cave reacens 2.4.2 Method Limitations of Using Jokes as Illustration 2.4.3 Reviewer Perspectives on Jokes-Based Illustrations and Possible Responses: .c0cci0esekaetcacetaade un

33 > The vege lige i 3.3.1 a ed Inte: vie y Method: pia

Chapter 1 A) Introduction of Jokes-Based Research eee Methods 1.1 Traditional Studies of Ethical Transgressions in Business

1.1.1 Journalists Reporting on Unethical Business Practices That Include Consultants

From journalists, we learn most about ethical transgressions in business. For long, they are the main informants of scholars in business ethics. What they do report are extreme examples of unethical behaviour, like environmental pollution due to mining, fracking, unsafe oil transport or ecological damage due to bio engineering. Other examples relate to health effects like lung cancer (tobacco industry), DNA damage (nuclear power plants) and lower life expectancy caused by air and water pollution (many industries). On the societal level, reported scandals relate to child labour, new forms of slavery (sweatshops), outsourcing illegal ways of working (mostly by using subcontractors from other countries), gender inequality and various forms of discrimination (everywhere). Journalists also report on money laundering scandals in the financial sector, and about the abundant use of fat, salt, sugar and other additives in the food process industry that encourage overconsumption leading to obesity, indicating companies raise sales at the cost of health. In many service industries, we find pressuring management aiming at increasing profitability, turning burnout into a common job-related illness in a growing number of countries. We learn from journalists it is the most reported job-related illness in the Netherlands for several years now.

Management consultants are partners in crime in many of these scandals. Big 4 (Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC) and big 3 (Bain, BCG, McKinsey) consultancies figure prominently in the news on these scandals. They help their clients, for instance, with finding loopholes in the law. Journalists of ICIJ (2014: https://www. icij.org/investigations/luxembourg-leaks/big-4-audit-firms-play-big-role-offshoremurk/) report tax avoidance practices based on the Lux Leaks. Tax advisors of all

© The Author(s) 2023 1 O. Bouwmeester, Business Ethics and Critical Consultant Jokes, SpringerBriefs in Ethics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10201-1_1 big four consultancies were involved. A second reported practice is overcharging, sometimes resulting in multi-million settlements as with KPMG and BearingPoint (New York Times, Apr. 5, 2004: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/business/ kpmg-and-ex-unit-settle-overbilling-case.html). A third example relates to working for corrupt government officials like Isabel dos Santos in Angola (BCG, McKinsey and PwC) or restructuring the South African Revenue Service (SARS) in South Africa under President Zuma, where Bain was complicit in the resulting scandal, and had to settle (Financial Times, Oct. 9, 2018: https://www.ft.com/content/f6d e62e6-cbb7- 1 le8-9fe5-24ad35 1828ab).

Consultants take actively part in the unethical decisions of their clients. The Purdue Pharma case with McKinsey’s highest ever settlement is such an example. McKinsey was held responsible for the many overdose deaths (estimated are 450.000 deaths between 1999 and 2018 in the US) of the very addictive OxyContin painkiller, as McKinsey had helped boosting sales of the drug (BBC News, Feb. 4, 2021: https:// www.bbc.com/news/business-55939224). A related example is the tobacco tactics scandal in Australia, where a Deloitte report commissioned by the tobacco industry was heavily criticized by TobaccoTactics (2020: https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/del oitte/).

Consultants have also been criticized for giving unfounded or flawed advice to the detriment of their clients, like BCG in the Swedish Karolinska Hospital Scandal, discussed in a blog of Asa Cajander (2019: https://www.asacajander.se/2019/06/17/ kampen-on-karolinska-konsulterna-by-anna-gustafsson-and-lisa-rostlund/). Much discussed is also McKinsey’s hunter strategy for Swissair, leading to their collapse, because Swissair started to invest in the wrong airlines (Economist, July 19, 2001: https://www.economist.com/business/200 1/07/19/a-scary-swiss-meltdown). Next to this, many consultants were involved in insider trading, with journalists reporting several convictions.

Such examples are the top of an iceberg. By studying newspapers, business ethicists learn from journalists about these very extreme cases. The focus is here on what went extremely wrong. Therefore this overview based on what journalists report is not representative for the full spectrum of moral transgressions in the corporate world. What about the more daily forms of unethical behaviour in the business world? How could we study them? Are journalists and their accounts our only sources to study ethical transgressions in business, or do we have more options?

As business ethics is a rather theoretical field dominated by philosophers, the ways to study ethical transgressions in business are limited. In addition, common empirical methods of social scientists have not been developed to study the research questions of business ethicists. That makes business ethics a field of study that is very dependent on non-academic sources. Scholars in business ethics could take more responsibility for developing the methods they need, to study ethics cases in business more accurately, covering individual business behaviours as well as how business life is organized. However, philosophers trained in ethics might feel they are not well prepared for this. Therefore, the current book seeks to answer the question how business ethics can develop new tailored research methods to study ethical transgressions in professional contexts.

1.1 Traditional Studies of Ethical Transgressions in Business 3

I will explore the raised method question by taking criticized consultant practices as a research context for this book. If we can find new ways to let consultants share their experiences, instead of only relying on what journalists report, we might be able to learn a lot more about business ethical transgressions, also in other business fields. Consultants know about their own unethical practices, and they have designed codes of conduct to prevent them. Moreover, management consultants are very knowledgeable as partners in crime. As illustrated above, they are involved in many scandals co-created with their clients.

What makes the ethics question difficult to study, is that confidentiality agreements hinder consultants to share experiences. Opening up might even hurt their clients’ and consultants’ own reputations. That means, in spite of their rich knowledge, it will be a challenge to motivate consultants to share their insights. Research in business ethics will also be subject to social desirability bias. One journalist reported this very same experience when talking to investment bankers about their unethical behaviours related to the banking crisis (cf. Luyendijk, 2015). Therefore, many journalistic accounts have been based on court cases, on “leaks” documents, and on what whistleblowers report. It really is a challenge, to study real-life cases of unethical business behaviours.

Social scientists may have encountered unethical business behaviours in their research as well, and they must have faced the same obstacles. Therefore, it is good to first see how past academic studies exploring aspects of consultant ethics did arrive at their results. Before introducing new methods to study ethical transgressions in business, we should know what kind of research has been done in the example case of consultants, as one of the key players in the business field. What methods have been practiced up till now, and what ethical issues have been reported?

1.1.2 Academic Studies on Consultants’ Ethics and Their Methods

Some recent reviews and an Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting indicate studies on consultants have increased over the years (Bouwmeester et al., 2022; Cerruti et al., 2019; Kipping & Clark, 2012; Mosonyi et al., 2020). While ethics is addressed in the Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting as an area of interest (Kipping & Clark, 2012; Krehmeyer & Freeman, 2012), the literature on ethics in consulting is still very nascent. Only ten consultant studies could be found with ethics as the main focus. Other studies are touching on the topic, but it is not the key theme studied.

All consultant studies touching on ethics will be reviewed for the critical themes addressed, and the ten key studies also for the research methods used, which are mostly traditional such as interviews, surveys and case studies. Regarding themes, consultant literature pictures clients as the victims of consultants mainly. The issue of consultants and clients as partners in crime that we can learn from journalists is not addressed yet in academic literature on consultants’ ethics. This might indicate that used methods are not so well able to pass beyond the barriers of social desirability bias yet, and maybe researcher bias plays a role as well.

The first theme discussed in the literature on consultant ethics relates to expertise. When recommendations have been given with damaging effects on the client, the reason can be consultants’ incompetence (e.g. Alvesson & Johansson, 2002; Bouwmeester & Stiekema, 2015; Exton, 1982; Sturdy, 2009). McKenna (2006, p. 142) illustrates, for instance, how incompetence has harmed a client. Consultants working for a non-profit organization assume that non-profits are always inefficiently managed. Such an assumption is clearly based on overgeneralization and indicates a superficial judgement. Likewise, a case study by McKay (2000, p. 295) mentions a group of consultants who did everything wrong in their assignment, and as a consequence, were dismissed. Such examples happen often enough to be noticed. However, clients can be part of the problem when things go wrong. The German philosopher Sloterdijk argues that consultants very well know that their expertise is limited (Sloterdijk, 2006, p. 107). However, such self-knowledge does not always apply to incompetent clients, by him referred to as “Inkompetenztrager’’. Poulfelt (1997, p. 69) likewise acknowledges consultants’ superficiality, but adds like Sloterdijk that clients “can also add (unnecessary) fuel to the fire to protect self-esteem and their own image”.

A second criticism points at unethical forms of dishonesty and one-sidedness. While consultants consider honesty, authenticity and reliability very important for a good consultant-client relationship (Block, 2000, p. 37; Shaw, 2020, p. 37), the consultant role often requires more flexibility in this respect than commonly assumed as being ethical. Bluffing seems common practice, and overconfidence part of the job (Angner, 2006; Boussebaa, 2008; Bouwmeester, 2013). In addition, in their role as an advocate—or devil’s advocate—consultants may draw on selective truth and one-sided perspectives (Mason, 1969; Saxton, 1995). Jackall (1988, p. 142) mentions a tendency of consultants using euphemistic language and trying to focus on the bright side of difficult situations. In contrast, de Caluwé and Witteveen (2001, p. 11) report that consultants, in trying to arouse certain emotions in clients, may also use exaggeration and distortion techniques to mercilessly address clients’ limitations. Apart from this Redekop and Heath (2007, p. 42) argue that consultants can get away with dishonest behaviour quite easily. The authors back this up by quoting consultants who claim that it is highly unlikely they will get caught using fallacious figures or manipulating some numbers in a regression analysis (Redekop & Heath, 2007, p. 45).

The third issue implies dishonesty as well. Overcharging means consultants do not sufficiently live up to the conditions as stated in the contract (Shaw, 2020, p. 33) which makes them unreliable. Redekop and Heath (2007, p. 44) explain as with dishonesty: “It is not that consultants are necessarily greedier than anyone else, it is only that they are in a unique position to capitalize on it”. As clients can hardly control the time consultants spend on their assignments, they can write hours they do not work, as long as the client is satisfied with the end result. Kakabadse et al. (2006, p. 458) cite some consultants who feel uncomfortable with this practice, a sentiment

1.1 Traditional Studies of Ethical Transgressions in Business 5 found in Alvesson and Johansson (2002) as well. Overcharging or double-billing is more common when consultant services are in high demand. Still, Bergh and Gibbons (2011) argue that research does not support the criticism that consultants overcharge systematically and in general. When the demand for consultant services goes down, prices go down as well. Consultants’ strong commercial focus is also visible in the practice known as “sell on” which is extending or renewing contracts as long as you can, no matter if it benefits the client. It is an unethical practice discussed by many authors (see O’ Mahoney, 2011, pp. 107—108; Jones, 2003, p. 275; Rassam & Oates, 1991, p. 25; Sturdy, 1997, p. 401).

Fourth, when consultants work with clients, they do not always take the whole client system into account. Although serving the client’s interest is considered very important (Shaw, 2020, p. 36), interests of the primary client are not necessarily aligned with the interests of all employees, or other relevant external stakeholders (see Bouwmeester & Stiekema, 2015; Poulfelt, 1997; Schein, 1997; Sturdy, 2009). For instance, IT assignments have the potential of increasing efficiency but do not always benefit employees. Sometimes they lose their jobs, in other cases, the work changes. An example is remote working and flex office designs invented by consultants. They can decrease short-term sick leave, but often increase long-term sick leave, feelings of anonymity and concentration problems (Bouwmeester, 2017, pp. 113-121).

Finally, some criticisms relate to internal stakeholder interests at consultancies themselves. Managing partners are not so ethical when relating to client employees, and they seem as commercially focused when it comes to their own employees (Heller, 2002; Krehmeyer & Freeman, 2012; O’Mahoney, 2011; Sturdy, 2009). This criticism aligns with studies reporting high levels of stress and work-life conflict, suggesting that consultants have very demanding managers (Alvesson & Einola, 2018; Bouwmeester & Kok, 2018; Meriläinen et al., 2004; Miihlhaus & Bouwmeester, 2016; Noury et al., 2017). Scholars have also pointed at the metaphor of prostitution (Alvesson & Johansson, 2002, p. 230; Jackall, 1988, p. 143), also suggesting their management is asking too much.

From a methods perspective, some of the criticisms discussed in ten academic articles with a main focus on consultant ethics are inspired by popular press such as newspaper articles, or references to journalistic books (i.e. Ashford, 1998; Micklethwaite & Wooldridge, 1996), autobiographical work (i.e. Pinault, 2000) or other more popular accounts like novels (i.e. Kihn, 2012). Still, more common is to use references to other academic studies, and sometimes own primary data is generated. Table 1.1 gives an overview of the main methods relied on in the ten articles where the focus on consultant ethics is central.

References to other theoretical or empirical work are the dominant source in all ten articles. Studies also use own interview data or survey results. The two studies that refer explicitly to popular press, cite articles from newspapers or magazines and various non-fiction books as illustration of a theoretical argument. Probably we could learn more from these sources. For instance, as indicated before, from the Purdue Pharma case we could learn that McKinsey and their client acted as partners in crime. The TV series House of Lies illustrates similar cases. It is based on a novel inspired by the experiences of Kihn (2012), an ex-consultant at Booz Allan Hamilton.

Table 1.1 Methods used in earlier studies on ethics in management consulting

Sources Referencing Interviews | Surveys | Case study Articles Other studies | Popular press

Allen and Davis (1993) x x Bouwmeester and Kok x x

Bouwmeester and Stiekema | x x

Krehmeyer and Freeman x x

McKay (2000) x x x O’ Mahoney (2011) x x

Poulfelt (1997) x

Redekop and Heath (2007) | x x

Sturdy (2009) x x

Still, this partner-in-crime perspective is missing in academic literature, whereas it seems a credible observation. In addition, Allen and Davis (1993) are left with many unanswered questions after their survey. Redekop and Heath (2007) try to follow up on these questions with an interview study, but their results stay very tentative. Currently, we seem to miss out on some relevant issues. The question is how to better engage in empirical research on all ethical issues and how to invite more honest responses, given the challenges of social desirability bias, moral disengagement or sheer denial. What research methods could help scholars in ethics to generate better results on ethical transgressions and ethical dilemmas in business?

1.2 Unethical Business Practices and Public Jokes

1.2.1 Literature Studies and Ethics

As demonstrated in the context of consulting, academic studies that explore examples of ethical transgressions empirically are comparatively rare. Business ethics has a rather limited tradition in studying ethical transgressions empirically, mainly due to a lack of tailored empirical research methods. The field of ethics is mainly philosophical and prefers to reflect on theoretical cases and thought experiments, next to business cases provided by journalists.

Most empirical work on ethics is done by moral psychologists, often in experimental settings, and by organization theorists in CSR studies. Empirical research in

1.2 Unethical Business Practices and Public Jokes 7 business ethics remains a challenge, as reflecting in interviews on ethical transgressions experienced in the business context is not easy, and the same applies to giving honest personal answers in a survey. Feelings of shame or fear for lack of control over interpretations by researchers create social desirability bias. Many respondents stay silent when asked about their own unethical business behaviours. They even feel constrained to talk about ethical transgression they have witnessed (cf. Luyendijk, 2015). Itis not easy to start a reflection on ethical challenges in business, on behaviour that is far from heroic, or when you failed to face a moral challenge (cf. Hermanowicz, 2002).

While in ethics there is not much of an empirical research tradition, Nussbaum (1995, 2001) could be considered an exception. She has studied novels and tragedies as a way to learn more about ethical traditions in the past and learn how ethical dilemmas were experienced at that time and place. Novels, tragedies or comedies can illustrate how their main characters experience moral struggles that mirror real life. Likewise, we could study novels, comedies or tragedies situated in a current business context, to learn more about current moral challenges. For older professions like lawyers, policemen or professors there have been written such novels and plays that could be used. However, related to the new profession of management consultants there are not so many novels, and novels are not very up to date usually. They span longer time periods in their historical accounts.

Inspired by literature analysis, an alternative source are critical business jokes and cartoons as published on websites, or in newspapers and business magazines. Some studies have hinted at their usefulness for research. For example, Parker (2007, p. 88) suggests that critical representations of popular culture might have the potential to support an ethical agenda. Especially critical cartoons make a moral appeal. Sturdy et al. (2008, p. 142) suggest that there might be a link between humour and ethics, “perhaps”. Galanter argues that jokes may “reveal something about our society and ourselves that may otherwise elude us” (Galanter, 2005, p. 19). Therefore, this book seeks to explore how critical business jokes can be part of research methods in the field of business ethics, as there are many critical business jokes on consultants and their ethics.

Similar to tragedy and comedy, jokes and cartoons illustrate what deserves critical attention, including transgressive behaviour of an unethical kind. In the field of consulting such jokes are prominent, next to jokes on lack of work-life balance or an overly strong interest in technological gadgets. Especially the jokes on ethics can be a source for study. Promising is, that jokes are only perceived as funny, if audiences can recognize the ridiculed behaviour. Moreover, jokes play with what is right or wrong, normal or absurd, and timely or outdated. They activate common norms and standards, including ethical ones, by showing norm violation. For that reason, jokes might be able to enrich traditional research methods like interview and survey studies in a way that they become more useful for business ethics research. It is these kinds of methods we want to discuss further. The question is how such jokes-based methods can be used for studying business ethical transgressions.

1.2.2 Humour Theories and Joking About Unethical Practices

Why is it, that jokes or cartoons are used to articulate unethical practices in business? Or to criticize behaviour of politicians? Unethical behaviour has a big share in business jokes, next to illustrations of absurdity, stupidity, ugliness and violations of particular social standards. Indeed, the three most discussed humour theories, incongruity theory, relief theory and superiority theory all indicate the links between humour and moral standards (Watson, 2015).

First, incongruity theory claims that something is funny because it is unexpected, unusual or surprising (Meyer, 2000; Mulder & Nijholt, 2002; Veatch, 1998). The usual serves as the norm, which is unsettled by a surprising punch line. In consultant jokes, the usual can be that consultants are expected to behave as experts and that they can give direction. An incongruity is that they demonstrate an apparent lack of ability. Incongruity theory claims that the surprise creates the fun. The next joke illustrates such an incongruity:

A client with one consultant knows what to do. A client with two consultants is never sure.

(http://www.ronspace.org/consult.htm)

Veatch (1998) criticizes incongruity theory while also building on it. He argues like Bergson (2008, p. 25) that not all incongruities are funny. He adds two necessary conditions that have to be fulfilled simultaneously. First, jokes need to tell something that is emotionally absurd, which implies an offense of what you think is proper, acceptable or just. If an incongruity is only strange, it does not cause enough energy for laughter. However, if the emotional absurdity is too harsh, people can get offended. Veatch’s humour theory therefore requires a mild offence of the shared moral, social or aesthetic norms and values of an audience, which is the absurdity condition: “the perceiver has in mind a view of the situation as constituting a violation of a “subjective moral principle”” (Veatch, 1998, p. 163). Second condition is that jokes have to characterize a situation that can be seen as normal, something that happens more often, something people can recognize: “the perceiver has in mind a predominating view of the situation as being normal” (Veatch, 1998, p. 164). These two conditions remind of Aristotle’s view in the Poetic (1988, p. 1449a), Nichomachean Ethics (1985, p. 1128a) and Rhetoric (1991, p. 1419b), where he argues that real humour should not hurt. Humour has to be entertaining by finding a middle way between being boring and being insulting. It is playing with right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, or normal and absurd. That makes humour a perfect vehicle to express moral criticisms mildly, in a way that is not too painful.

Second is the relief theory that adds a psychological dimension to explaining what humour does, which is coping with a difficult situation. While humour can very well serve this purpose, it may serve other purposes as well, which makes it a less general humour theory. The theory also claims that laughter can release the psychic energy that is needed to suppress feelings in taboo areas, like sex or death, and unethical activities belong here too. When taboo thoughts are triggered by humour, the theory

1.2 Unethical Business Practices and Public Jokes 9 explains that the release of energy results in laughter (Billig, 2005, p. 155; see also Downe, 1999; Meyer, 2000; Mulder & Nijholt, 2002). The relief theory explains coping humour, which is very personal and can also be self-derogative. By doing so, it can liberate feelings of pain, shame or embarrassment as illustrated in the joke:

Did you hear about the Partner ... that was so egotistical that even the other Partners noticed?

(http://www. weitzeneg ger.de/en/to/jokes.html)

The joke is written in the second person and invites a reading of workplace humour shared between consultants who feel unhappy about their manager’s behaviour. When coping jokes criticize such questionable partner behaviour, they enter into a taboo sphere. Consultants are supposed to respect these managing partners, and partners are expected to not only care for themselves. Laughter can help to make such a stressful situation more manageable and less overwhelming. Jokes can also make such partner behaviour more discussable than it would normally be. Coping humour has been studied in other challenging work contexts. Tracy et al. (2006, p. 291) have observed firefighters who “raise their position by laughing at themselves”. Coping humour has also been found by Downe (1999), as it appeared in the work life of Costa Rican prostitutes. It is the humour of insiders that work on the edge of what they can handle. One of these edges can be what we consider morally problematic in our professional field. While the mentioned studies observe workplace humour in context, coping humour is also visible in Internet jokes, then illustrating more general patterns like working for selfish partners as in the presented consulting joke, which is not a unique experience. Many consultants will recognize the feeling. Third is the superiority theory, claiming that people predominantly laugh at the misfortunes of others, and so create insider and outsider groups. Outsiders are put down as not being up to relevant standards in terms of fashion, status, or ethics. Early illustrations of this form of humour can be found in classic philosophy (cf. Aristotle, 1988, p. 1449a), and more pronounced in Hobbes (1991, p. 43). Humiliation of others is seen as an important trigger for laughter (Bergson, 2008, p. 93). Superiority theory assumes that laughter creates a distance between those who laugh, and the subjects of their laughter (Lennox Terrion & Ashforth, 2002). By laughing, the in-group marks certain behaviours or beliefs of outsiders as undesirable or unworthy. Deviant behaviour of outsiders is censored by laughter (Ferguson & Ford, 2008; Meyer, 2000). The next joke illustrates how consultants are made an inferior outsider group: