Moral Disengagement: Insights from the Malevolent Leader Dyad of Andrew Carnegie and Henry Frick

The narrative cleansing of Andrew Carnegie: entrepreneurial generativity as identity capital

“…Although Carnegie had always projected a public image of himself as a friend to labor (Krass, 2002), he was evidently morally hypocritical when he was backing Henry Frick to crush the striking mill workers at Homestead, PA (Humphreys et al , 2016). According to Carnegie (1920, p. 231); “Nothing I have ever had to meet in all my life, before or since, wounded me so deeply” (p. 232).…”

“…Moreover, Carnegie displayed an inability “to admit his own culpability” (Standiford, 2005, p. 310), as doing so would have required him to acknowledge behaviors that were inconsistent with his narratively constructed self and social identities. Humphreys et al (2016) argue that Andrew Carnegie used moral disengagement mechanisms to evade moral-self dissonance (affecting his self-identity) and public recrimination from others (affecting his social identity) for the unethical behavior during the Homestead strike that was antithetical to his narratively constructed identity.…”

“…Carnegie’s vast accumulation of wealth was guilt-free because it was socially acceptable during an era when Calvinist ideology had taken root to such a degree that “doing the Lord’s work” and “turning a profit” were ostensibly desired moral ends in America (Standiford, 2005, p. 6). But, as Carnegie’s sometimes did not use moral means to achieve these moral ends, his personal and public quest for absolution had to involve attempts of compensating for past moral misdeeds that were incongruent with his felt self-identity (Humphreys et al , 2016) and his projected social identity (Maclean et al , 2015). Therefore, Carnegie engaged in his identity reconstruction to supplant the anxiety and anguish associated with the breakdown of his entrepreneurial identity (Downing, 2005).…”

“…Therefore, Carnegie engaged in his identity reconstruction to supplant the anxiety and anguish associated with the breakdown of his entrepreneurial identity (Downing, 2005). In this way, Carnegie was internally giving moral license to himself to engage in moral cleansing of his past engagement in repugnant actions (Humphreys et al , 2016).…”

“…This kind of quest exemplifies Andrew Carnegie’s journey from self-regarding entrepreneur to others – regarding entrepreneurial philanthropist who attempted to redeem his identity tarnished by previous amoral and morally dubious acts committed during his remarkable period of wealth accumulation (Bostaph, 2015). To justify his prior questionable acts later in his life, Carnegie used rhetoric of moral cleansing (Humphreys et al , 2016), coupled with his generative entrepreneurial philanthropic efforts aimed at benefiting future generations (Erikson, 1963). Through rhetoric and donations, he strived to sustain the symbolic power of his successful entrepreneurial self (Creed et al , 2014).…”