Organizational Ethics Essay

In the industrial era, organizations have created untenable problems for moral experts by becoming bothersome illustrations of the dynamic social processes that defy attempts to apply traditional moral theory and detached philosophical wisdom. Kaufman (1973) observed that bureaucratic managers often privately approve of behavior that they acknowledge publically as illegal or unethical. Expectations for loyalty to the organization and for obedience to managerial direction set the a priori guidelines for moral conduct, and a given organization can develop and impose its own form of influence on the individual with an organizationally specific moral order that can seem to pre-empt external social order. Organization members can defy common social or religious morality when they are acting on behalf of the organization and feel justified in doing so because their behavior is judged within the context of the organization (Jackall, 1988). Yet, employees rarely exhibit unacceptable behavior in society that is acceptable inside the organization’s boundaries. Society holds the organization accountable as a rational actor, but rarely are the individuals actually responsible for creating organizational outcomes entailed in that accountability. Modern understanding of ethics emphasizes the behavioral aspects to the extent that the words ethics and morals are commonly used interchangeably by philosophers to refer to behavioral standards, codes of conduct or principles upon which these standards and codes are based. But, the different words imply different things. According to Bauman, ‘ethics is something more than a mere description of what people do; more even than a description of what they believe they ought to be doing in order to be decent, just, good – or, more generally, â€Å"in the right†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ (1994: 1). All organization members make decisions, the collective manifestations of which fall into certain patterns that result in more or less consistent outcomes. The exploration of these patterns can be conducted using political frameworks. Deetz has asserted that organizations make most decisions regarding the use of resources, the development of technologies, the products available, and the working relations among people’ (1992: 3). While it can be argued that a substantial portion of industrial technology is developed at the behest of the military, it is clear that organizations have taken on many roles heretofore expected of government. Deetz further suggested that the state’s power is restricted to crude guidance through taxation and regulation. Philosophical Aspect of Organizational Ethics The examination of contemporary nature and functioning of organization could be considered in terms of Aristotle’s philosophical system. Clearly the structure of society Aristotle had in mind when he wrote The Politics (Aristotle, 1962) was something completely different than the structure of industrial society. However, it may be possible to speculate on how he might have applied his fundamental principles of governance to modern times. Aristotle would certainly not regard a large and pluralistic country such as the USA or any industrial European country as the equivalent of a city/state (hereafter referred to as a polis – a political community). A polis, he said, ‘must have a population large enough to cater for all the needs of a self-sufficient existence, but not so large that it cannot be easily supervised’ (1962: VII, 4). It is doubtful even that he would regard the USA as culturally homogeneous enough to provide support to a polis similar to that provided to Athens by Hellenic culture. He might, however, consider an organization to be a form of polis. If so, then there would be implications for what we regard as organizational ethics. To begin with, Aristotle advocated slavery as an important economic tool for support of the polis. While we in industrial society believe that owning people is immoral, we have no moral problem with the concept of the organization owning’ an employee for a specified period of time each day. Substituting the words supervisor for master and subordinate for slave, the characteristics of this intermittent ownership are scarcely discernible from Aristotle’s slavery: the master/slave relationship is a reciprocal relationship united by a common interest (they cannot do without each other); above all subordinates must be obedient – not being obedient is grounds for termination; subordinates must perform only tasks specified by their supervisors and not other tasks; subordinates may not slack from performing these tasks; subordinates must perform these tasks when ordered to perform them and within the time period allotted; and, except under certain conditions, subordinates may not supplement their work with activities of their own choosing. Many employers feel justified imposing restrictions on personal relationships, and on affiliations with other organizations. Slavery was not only important economically for Aristotle, but it represented the natural order of things: ‘He that can by his intelligence foresee things needed is by nature a ruler and master, while he whose bodily strength enables him to perform them is by nature a slave’ (1962: I, 2). The organizational chart is a sophisticated method for establishing, conventionalizing and validating the master/slave relationship. Because Aristotle considered business to be a ‘household’ activity and not a political activity, it is tempting to consider the organization as a representation of Aristotle’s household, which is the repository of slavery. Aristotle defined the polis in a number of similar ways, but we can accept that it is ‘a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good’ (1962: I, 1). The purpose of the polis is of supreme importance in distinguishing it from other social entities; ‘the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims, and in a greater degree than any other, at the highest good’ (1962:1, 1). The purpose of an organization is, or should be, much more than simply serving customers and making profits (Deming, 1986). The organization is defined by its constitution, and it has a number of specific characteristics. For one, it is of a manageable size, as alluded to above. For another, it has a limited membership of citizens: ‘We do not for a moment accept the notion that we must give the name citizen to all persons whose presence is necessary for the existence of the state’ (1962: III, 5). States have little in common, so in each case the citizen is defined by the constitution. Aristotle would limit citizenship in a number of ways, but he defined a citizen as One who has the ability and the chance to participate in government’ (1962: III, 5). In a truly democratic organization (which Aristotle would not recommend) that might include all employees. In an ideal organization, Aristotle would limit citizenship to managers – what he would call an aristocracy. The constitution of an organization is defined by its charter and its strategic and operating plans, the sum of which include its mission, its standard operating policies and procedures, its organizational chart (structure) and its personnel manual – covering all three of the elements cited above. Deming (1986) would suggest that the constitution of an organization provides for its ‘constancy of purpose’ – the point of being in business in the first place. There are basically three types of organizations: (1) monarchies, run by entrepreneurs or autocrats; (2) aristocracies, run chiefly by some combination of boards of directors, executives and organizational managers (this type has many varieties); and (3) democracies, run by some constitutional form of employee consensus. Determination of a specific organization’s type for the purposes of measurement should be guided by some assessment of attitudes toward the supervisor/subordinate relationship from both sides of that relationship. There were many beloved masters in the history of slavery. True democracies will have few, if any, symbols used to determine and to enforce differences in status, and will have institutionalized methods of achieving consensus. Two essentials for the state (1962: VII, 4) are a supply of labor, and a territory. The workforce supplies the labor for an organization, and the territory is defined by organizational boundaries, assets and market share. Additional essential parts (1962: VII, 8) include (a) food – the sustenance, in the case of organizations we can cite products (profits? ) as that which sustains the striving for goals; (b) tools and crafts – the technology used to make products; (c) arms – for protection and acquisition of new territory, provided for organizations by marketing and legal departments; (d) wealth – capital; (e) religion – that which guides normal behavior and explains the unexplainable; and finally that part which is most essential (f) a method of arriving at decisions about policy and about right and wrong – defined by the constitution. Organizational Ethics: Contemporary View Ethics are sources of identity and motivation for mature individuals, representing some sense of prevailing telos. A person develops an ethic by learning cultural convention and then modifies what has been learned according to insight and personal experience. The point is often taken for granted; a good deal of that which influences the development of an ethic is not likely to be grasped consciously by the individual. Ethics establish states of existence for individuals that make them, for example, more or less predisposed to accept or reject authority and supervision of their activities. Ethics induce people to seek out the association of others who share similar ethics. Organizations, to varying degrees, represent political associations and opportunities for political activity that cannot otherwise be experienced or constructed by individuals within the greater society. While conventional knowledge holds that organizations are narrowly purposeful and rationally managed entities, research reveals processes that can best be explained as political activity (Barker, 1994; Jackall, 1988): (a) functional groups compete for ascendancy of ideas, influence and resources, which is characterized by conflict; (b) the level of power and influence of any one manager depends upon that individual prevailing in conflicts regularly; (c) the corporate and bureaucratic structures are set up by and for those with the most controlling power; (d) success or failure of managers has little to do with actual accomplishments, but rather with arbitrary perceptions of one’s ability by others and with supportive alliances (that is, success and failure are socially defined, not empirically measured); (e) truth is socially constructed and the organization mobilizes to support manufactured reality promoted by those in power; (f) uncertainty in the organization and in managem ent processes facilitates redefinition of organizational reality; and therefore, (g) decisions are based in political agreement, and agreement is based in comparative power and influence. Jackall found that the moral system for managers in bureaucratic organizations includes some of the following principles: (a) striving for success is a moral imperative; (b) rising stars serve to validate the moral system; (c) criteria for success are bounded by the system and can be based in illusion rather than in reality – success is often the result of taking credit for the good and avoiding blame for the bad; (d) self-control, and not necessarily rule-following behavior, is a moral imperative; (e) morality is determined by flexibility and adaptability to changing political realities, and not by strong convictions; (f) bad things must be covered up or reframed in order to protect the system; and, (g) morality is a matter of survival and gaining advantage. For the citizen of this polis, morality has different implications than it does for those we may call employees, which Aristotle might recognize as slaves. While all employees may be initiated as organizational members, only a select few will undergo extensive initiation to achieve the status of citizen. In the General Dynamics study, employees at lower levels of the organization expected their quality of life to improve as a result of the Ethics Program (Barker, 1993). The failure of their expectations to be realized was commonly attributed by them to immoral behavior on the part of managers. These employees had not been indoctrinated into citizenship. Most never would be. Consequently, they understood the basic customs that govern the masses, but not the protocol of the political elite. Middle and senior level managers at General Dynamics, who were citizens, commonly viewed the Ethics Program as simply another political obligation. Instead of an opportunity for improvement, most managers experienced the program as yet another uncertainty to be managed in their quest to succeed. Their conformance to the rules established by the program was established by the constitution, and their experience of justice was directly related to which of their behaviors were measured and rewarded by the polis. Supervisors were citizens-in-training, and were caught between their understanding of the desires of employees for improved quality of life and their realization that the political goal of the program was to improve customer relations with the Navy in particular and with the Pentagon in general – that is, to improve the quality of life for citizens and not necessarily for the masses. The decisions of the polis were governed by the need to survive and to protect territory. The welfare of the masses was secondary to this goal, and was considered ultimately irrelevant should the polis fail. Organizational Ethics: Gender Aspects Diversity in the work place is among the issues important to contemporary business concerns. Diversity itself is a large agenda, within which issues of inclusion, personnel advancement, and appropriate work relationships for all employees emerge. The ability of all employees to work in ways that build upon their competencies, to allow them to advance for the betterment of the corporation, and to provide and contribute to the individual’s best advantage are important for management. Recent reports suggest that firms illustrating diversity through company-wide inclusion are more competitive in the current marketplace (Gilbert, 1999). When sub-groups of employees, such as males and females within a corporation, are revealed to have quite differing perceptions of their work life, however, it garners the attention of management. There is always the possibility that such differences highlight other potential problematic areas such as discrimination, harassment, or ceiling effects that will ultimately emerge, thereby reducing a company’s competitive edge. From the critical point of view, gender as it pertains to ethics is one aspect within the larger context of business ethics. One reason to focus on this question is the increasing attention given to diversity in the work place (Gilbert, 1999). There is also an increase in the number of women in the work force, women entering business schools, and women in management positions. Additionally, there is a suggestion that women, in general, are more ethical than men (Clark and Barry, 1997). Several studies examine the differences between men and women in business. These studies involve, for example, students, managers, and professionals in business endeavors. One assumption that is explored is whether females have a greater propensity for ethical behavior than males. In a study of attitudes of practitioners regarding ethical judgment, females are found to adopt a more ethical stance than their male peers (Weeks, 1999); findings that support an earlier study on gender related to business intent and judgment (Robin and Babin, 1997). In the latter study, there is no difference on ethical judgment between male and female professionals in business. Schminke (1997) reports that male and female managers do not differ on their underlying ethical models, but they differ in the manner in which they evaluate others. Another report from these data reveals that men and women are different in business and non-business settings regarding their ethical decision models (Schminke and Ambrose, 1997). In a study among undergraduate business students, males and females offer different perceptions of a just society (Prasad, 1998). Studies of ethical climate and gender reveal that female business students are significantly more predisposed to a positive ethical climate than are male business students (Luthar, 1997). Lastly, a study exploring differences of male and female managers reveals that in some situations females are more ethical, but in others they are not (Hoffman, 1998). Another dimension of organizational ethics that has been examined involves behavior surrounding the reporting of a co-worker for an ethics issue. Gender and supervisor support are two variables found to be related to willingness to engage in external whistle blowing in business (Sims and Keenan, 1998). Females are more willing than males to participate in whistle blowing in their place of employment. In summary, the results of studies in business ethics that examine differences between males and females reveal mixed results, but the predominance of findings suggest that females are more predisposed to ethical situations than are males. The results are true both for students and for employees in business.