Technology, Business and Ethics - Term Paper Example

Technology, Business and Ethics Using media, internet and library sources, identify one current issue that presents an ethical problem for an organization. Describe the context of the problem, explain why you think it is a problem (using relevant theories from the course), and explain what you think should be done about it. Introduction In the modern world, there are several issues being faced by business mangers which have an ethical dimension and it becomes difficult to say that which one is more important that the other. Even in business terms, it is not easy to deduce what effect an ethical issue will have on the bottom line of the company therefore all have to be treated more or less equally. Of course depending on the situation of the company, some issues may carry a sense of urgency while others could be put on the back burner but it must be kept in mind that all ethics related issues will need to be tackled sooner or later. Very recently, scientists have discovered a tool which can let businesses screen recruits based on their personality and intentions with the company like never before. Sample (2007) reports that scientists working in the field of neurology have developed a system with which they are able to look into a person’s mind and see their intentions even before they are carried out. Essentially, it allows them to bug the mind of an individual much like a telephone can be bugged. The methodology is based on taking high resolution scans of the brain to identify the activity in certain areas of the brain which can be translated into the actual thoughts of the person. A Useful Technology? A brain image of this kind could reveal a person who is lying, having violent thoughts, has racial prejudices, or any other negative or positive emotions. While the process can be used to help in interviews and negotiating contracts, it could easily turn into an Orwellian business tool much like the thought police. Of course the brain scan could also be used to prove the innocence of an individual accused of something who has not committed the crime but the things such as the invasion of individual privacy and the violation of employee rights certainly bring up interesting questions. Several viewpoints can be taken in terms of how business ethics and ethics in general would respond to the use of this thought scanner. It might be good for the company in terms of stakeholders to know what their employees were thinking about in terms of defrauding the company or even taking time off for the wrong reasons. Not being ill but calling in sick could be one such situation and siphoning company money to private accounts (as per what happened to the late Ernon) could be a more serious situation which could be discovered using the thought scanner. However, we know that there is a significant debate over companies control over the emails sent by their employees and it has also been debated in terms of ethical objections. In the future, once something like a thought scanner is present in the real world rather than the research laboratories, there could be another influx of objectors and supports of the ethical debate on the item and its use. It can be shown with the help of Ethical theories such as utilitarianism and cultural relativism that the use of the object is in the interest of the business but might not be in the interest of the employees themselves. The Business Use of the Thought Scanner Given that the nature of the job in a modern office often includes guidelines for inclusion and makes accessibility a mandatory requirement, there are very few exceptions to the ethical guidelines as well as the legal requirements which can be obtained by the company (Lockwood, 2005). Without exception, managers for a company should follow ethical principles and it should be assumed by them that all employment laws apply in the fullest sense during the employment process (Alleyne, 2005). However, with the presence of a thought scanner, a recruiter could know if the person being selected for hiring was actually hiding something from them. For example, the situation of being HIV positive that may cause them to be discriminated against. Clearly, here the person is not at fault simply by the fact of being HIV positive but if that thought does come to the person’s mind during the interview or at anytime during course of the day, a thought scanner could pick it up and report it to someone. Personality profiling is another area where the use of the thought scanner could have questionable implications. The study and practice of human resource management uses principles from the areas of economics, sociology, political science and most importantly psychology to predict, control and explain the behaviour of certain elements in any organization. Since organisations are mainly composed of people and the interactions between them make up the behaviour of the organization, therefore, this field can also be taken as a look at the interactions of different personalities and structured thought patterns in an organizational setting. In terms of psychology, it is understood that certain personality types are better at handling certain positions than others and even though personality itself is rather complex to define but the generally accepted notion has been the collection of emotional and behavioural properties as well as the thoughts and ideas of a person. The earlier work in this field is attributed to Jung which was later on expanded by others. While we may say that person X has a cheerful personality, scientists prefer to classify personality in three different models including Factorial models, typologies and circumplexes which are directly connected with how they perform in given situations (Clarke & Robertson, 2005). This process can be used to profile employees based on their thoughts rather than their performance for the company. There is a significant amount of research and information which shows that there is a definite link between personality and certain job roles. Of course much of the evidence presented is based on anecdotes and observations by individuals but scientific research into the field also supports this position. On an individual level, it has been shown that having a proactive personality can have a positive effect on an individual’s performance and career (Erdogan, 2005). A person who thinks proactively can be pin pointed by the number of times s/he has thoughts which can be marked as proactive by the thought scanner. Would it be ethical then for the business to earmark that individual for future promotions even if their individual performance was not up to par? Additionally, there is a newly discovered higher order personality trait called Honesty-Humility which impacts the tendency towards antisocial behaviour at work (Lee, et. al. 2005). Should a company consider firing a person who often thinks about bringing a gun to work to kill all his/her co-workers? Should a retail business like Wal-Mart or Tesco be allowed to use the scanner on all incoming shoppers to find out if they have shoplifting intentions? The Application of Theories These and many such questions can be answered with the use of two theories of ethics. The first of which is utilitarianism and the second is the ethical relativist theory. Since there are both positive and negative sides to the debate on the reading of thoughts it would be useful to examine each school of thought (Relativism as well as Utilitarianism) on its own and apply the basic ideas of the school to the ethics of using the new technology in a business environment. Relativism The basic definition of the idea of ethical relativism is explained by Velasquez et. al. (1992) and they say that: “Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of ones culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another (Velasquez, 1992, Pg. 1).” Clearly, such an analysis comes with the advantage of saying that we do not know what is right and wrong since we do not know how one company culture will react to the presence of the thought reading machine as compared to another. A draconian company which is being operated like a police state may welcome the device and push its positive points for moving the employees towards accepting the thought scanner. On the other hand, a liberal company which believes in the ideals of privacy and giving liberties to employees may severely restrict the use of the device and may even bar the use of this device. Application of Ethical Relativism Under the guidance of ethical relativism, it would be difficult to find an established common framework for handling and removing disputes concerning the use of the device in the two companies mentioned above. The tough would probably function better in its objectives to remain a tightly run operation if they could spot employees who are lying or showing dissent or having disrespectful thoughts about their bosses. At the same time, the company following Theory Y of management could use the same device for employee training by understanding their thoughts about a topic and then giving them correct guidelines without feeling the need to spy on their thoughts. There is nothing wrong in technological terms with the device itself; it is only the use of the device which can be good or bad in ethical terms for a company. However, since that judgment of good and bad depends on the relative cultures and management styles of the two companies, it is clear that under the dictates of ethical relativism, no judgments can be passed as to the ethical use of the device. Basically, if the culture of the company accepts a given use as ethical then the use is ethical. In fact, the same argument can be applied to other ethical debates such as eavesdropping technology, employee internet usage monitoring or even the use of the employee break room. Since culture governs the need and process of making things ethical or unethical, the use of the device would be ethical in whatever means it is used as long as the culture where it is being used agrees with that particular use. No Real Solution Ethical relativism has simply chosen to ignore a problem by saying that ethics are relative to the culture and universality can not be achieved through any means. In effect, this idea becomes more confrontational since it simply continues the problem or defers the solution to a more advanced generation of ethicists who can communicate more affectively to resolve their individual as well as their collective differences. By not having any established universal standards, ethical relativism takes us towards a clash of ideas rather than a resolution which seeks dialogue and reconciliation between the employer and employees. Perhaps by looking at utilitarian ethics we might be able to come up with a better answer to the problem posed by the new technology. Utilitarianism In the simplest of terms, utilitarianism means usefulness for a given group. It is a code of ethics which suggests that all of our actions should be taken while keeping the good of the people in mind. The good of the people can be happiness, pleasure or satisfaction depending on the philosopher who describes the theory but the general idea is to behave in such a way so as to make life better for the people (Wilson, 2006). The use of the device or any other implement for that matter would depend on the good it brings to the people. Who Decides? For any given business however, this leads to a very severe dilemma which can be questioned in light of utilitarianism i.e. who decides what is good for the people? Of course we can say that in a democratic system, the people decide what is good for them but we also know that public opinion about things can be created, modified or changed altogether (Yeatman, 2004). Additionally, what is good for the people may not be good for the company in any way. For example, the people might be very happy if a retail giant suddenly started giving everything away for free but the shareholders and the board of directors might have a hard time coming to terms over this sudden change in policy. Airlines which follow utilitarian principles to the letter should try and cram as many passengers into their jets as they can even at the cost of the safety of a few planes since the majority would not crash and therefore more people would be made happy by free flights. Of course it can be said that such ideas are taking the argument to an absurdist level but with something like the thought scanner, it becomes very difficult to decide if the use of the device would be good for the people or not. Under utilitarianism, we can come up with the idea of justice which protects human rights. Employees within the company must have their human rights protected while the company is using the thought scanner. For example, they company may say that any thoughts regarding mental or physical ailments will be ignored to protect the privacy of the individual however, it is also possible that no matter what individual rights are protected by the company, some individuals might not be happy with the situation as reported by Mullender (2003) who says that it is wrong to assume that everyone will be content if human rights are protected since there are those who might seek rights which can not be accommodated in a legal structure. For instance, what should a company do if the employees wish the thought scanner to be installed and that all thoughts of all individuals (including their bosses) should be put on a bulletin board. In such cases, even if the use of the device is actually good for the larger public’s safety and security, those who disagree with its use for scanning thoughts will continue to protest against its use as a violation of human rights. Since utilitarianism takes pain and pleasure as the two results for any action taken by a person. Whatever brings pleasure to the greatest number of people and makes them happy is utilitarian and therefore good. Whatever brings misery or pain to the people is bad and should be avoided (Sweet, 2006). Perhaps a free and fair employee opinion poll on the uses of the device can be used to come up with a utilitarian answer to the problem since the employees will have an opportunity to decide what is good for them on a collective level. Since everyone will be able to have their say in the matter, a majority vote would reflect the happiness of the majority itself. Is there Justice in it? Mill might agree with that approach whole heartedly. John Stuart Mill outlined his idea of the utilitarian philosophy in the book titled Utilitarianism. He developed and expanded the ideas presented by Bentham, Hegel and others by giving us the idea of cultural happiness and inner satisfaction as a part of what makes society happy. Mill’s philosophy differs from other utilitarian thinkers significantly since he offers an idea of justice attached to utilitarianism which balances the happiness creation principles for society (Wilson, 2006). Under this idea, the use of the device not only has to bring happiness to the employees, the use must be just as well. I think that this is a better answer than ethical relativism since the principles of justice are based on the ideas of knowing what is fair. Even though the world of law has progressed a long way from the first codified law tablets to present day European code of justice, the laws are still a reflection of what society wants. If the laws can be used for justice, they can be applied to the use of the thought scanner and an eventual answer as to its use can be arrived at quite easily. That is, If the government says the use of the thought scanner is ok, then the companies should be able to use it. Undoubtedly, if utilitarian thinking leads to the use of the device to find out criminal intent (accounting frauds) and to catch those who wish harm to the company (shoplifters), their personal happiness will certainly be affected negatively if their intents are exposed. However, the overall happiness of the company may be increased significantly with higher levels of profit, a reduced level of stress for the employees and a better understanding of the viewpoints of other members of the company. Conclusion I feel that the device itself has more benefits than disadvantages and yes I do not wish my thoughts to be exposed to everyone at all times. However, the utilitarian viewpoint certainly appeals to the logical and just use of the device for increasing the overall level of satisfaction. Undeniably, the loss of privacy and the threat of someone’s boss finding out their deepest darkest secrets is quite a horrifying thought but under the dictates of utilitarianism coupled with justice, the needs of privacy and the respect for individual human rights could not be violated without just case and sufficient reason. In fact, even today, the management of a company can call up an employee for questioning and they can have at hand psychological experts and forensic accountants who can tell if an individual is hiding something or not. Similarly, there are hundreds of video cameras which are watching our every move in banks, shopping centres and even houses of worship. Our emails may be monitored by our employees as well as our usage of the internet and in fact, we are much closer if not living in the dreaded Orwellian state which was being run by Big Brother (Rodgers, 2005). Might as well go ahead and let the thought police do their worst. Works Cited Alleyne, S. 2005, ‘But Can You Walk the Walk’, Journal of Black Enterprise, 36(2) pp. 100-105. Clarke, S. and Robertson, I. T. 2005, ‘A meta-analytic review of the Big Five personality factors and accident involvement in occupational and non-occupational settings’, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 78(3), pp. 355-376. Erdogan, B. 2005, ‘Enhancing Career Benefits of Employee’s Proactive Personality’, Personnel Psychology, 58(4). pp. 859-891. Lee, K. et. al. 2005, ‘Personality Correlates of Workplace Anti-Social Behaviour’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(1), pp. 81-98. Lockwood, N. R. 2005, ‘Workplace Diversity: Leveraging the Power of Difference for Competitive Advantage’, HR Magazine, 50(6), pp. 1-14. Mullender, R. 2003, ‘Human Rights, and Particularism’, Journal of Law & Society, 30(4), pp. 554-574. Rodgers, T. 2005, British, US Spying Draws Us Closer to Orwells Big Brother, [Online] Available at: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1229-35.htm Sample, I. 2007, ‘The brain scan that can read peoples intentions’, The Guardian, [Online] Available at: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329710503-117802,00.html Sweet, W. 2006, ‘Jeremy Bentham’ University of Tennessee, [Online] Available at: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/b/bentham.htm Velasquez, M. et. al. 1992, ‘Ethical Relativism’, Santa Clara University, [Online] Available at: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/ethicalrelativism.html Wilson, F. 2006, ‘John Stuart Mill’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [Online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/ Word Count: 3,220 Read More