Looking at the two moral syndromes again and some of the reaction here and elsewhere it strikes me that there is a very important detail that needs to be clarified.
Jane Jacobs is not proposing this two sets of moral values as something new which will make business more ethical. The goal of her book is to find out ways to counter what she saw as an explosion in unethical behaviour in business and politics but the two syndromes are pure anthropology. Look at any culture you want and you can find both operating in different spheres.
Most critics missed this but, if you read the book, she makes it very clear that she found these syndromes already existing in the world. She read hundreds of articles and books about morality and she found these two syndromes already there. (And it's not just her, the existence of the two sets of virtues is a common place discovery in anthropology.)
Her conclusion, by the way, is that things go wrong when people try and synthesize the syndromes. That produces what she calls monstrous hybrids, and you could sum up the book by saying, we need both syndromes and they need to be kept separate.
So, while the problem is particular, the virtues are found everywhere. including in the novel Rob Roy and all through the Bible.
That there are sets of virtues that are appropriate in some contexts and not in another one is, I'll grant you, an idea our liberal culture finds appalling. But, appalling or not, it is the way the world works.