Ethical leadership in the modern business market - Essay Example

? Ethics and the XXI Century Section/# Whereas one may wish to think that ethics themselves have changed little over the course of the past century, the fact of the matter is that the way in which the world has changed combined with the demands that the growth of technology and other factors have played with regards to differentiating the way that shareholders integrate with key aspects of information and the world around them has fundamentally shifted. Although seeking to understand each and every aspect of the way that ethics have shifted and changed in the years that make up the XXI century would require a thesis length response, this brief analysis will seek to understanding and briefly enumerate upon the key differentials that have come to exist within ethics of the XXI century as opposed to those that existed earlier. Furthermore, the analysis will give a particular level of discussion with regards to the means by which the recent global financial collapse was ultimately precipitated and aided by the complete disregard for ethical standards. Perhaps the most salient and important aspect of ethics that have changed within the XXI century is the level to which ethics have come to be differentiated upon the terms of both personal and systemic. If one briefly considers the way that a large company handled business back before the turn of the XXI century they would come to note that the company placed a high degree of emphasis on honesty of the employees and/or shareholders as a fundamental requirement that might be espoused (Brenkert, 2010). However, namely missing from such an ethical interpretation of company needs would be the reciprocal understanding that it was the sworn duty of the form to exhibit such a level of ethical responsibility with regards to both the employees as well as the end consumer. In this way, ethical considerations of the previous era were more focused on profitability and how the company may wish to safeguard its assets, inclusive of employees, while completely disregarding the ethical responsibilities that management/leadership espoused with relation to the rest of the system (Cuillla, 2011). This should of course not be understood to mean that all firms during this time were disrespectful to the ethical considerations that they must necessarily espouse to the customer or to the shareholder/employee. Rather, the level of emphasis, as it exists today was not to such a highly evolved, regulated, and legislated mandate that it has subsequently reached within the past several decades. Says the textbook that was used for this class, “An organization is concerned with regulating the behavior and performance of its employees to ensure safe, uniform, and effective conduct in the performance of duties” (McLachlan, 2009). This level of ethical understanding of as a function of profitability is perhaps the single most important reality that must be considered with regards to the global economic collapse 2007/2008. Rather than the shareholders of the situation paying particular attention to the ethical ramifications of their actions, profitability was ultimately championed as the greater good in each and every situation. Although it is oftentimes been convenient for individuals to point to the upper management of firms such as Lehman Brothers, the reality of the situation is that middle management as well as the line employees of such institutions bore as much ethical culpability as those at the top. Due to the fact that they were fully aware of the situation was taken place and did absolutely nothing to bring these concerns to light, these individuals are ethically and morally culpable as well. Although it is not the determination of this particular analysis to shed blame with regards to global financial collapse of 2007/2008, it must be understood that an ethical interpretation of the event demands that all parties be analyzed in an unbiased manner. This shared form of responsibility has become a fundamental hallmark of the ethics of the XXI century. Naturally, as have been demonstrated by a host of separate incidents and oversights, the fact of the matter is that ethical oversights and concerns still continue to pervade the business environment; however, this being said, the fundamental shift and perceptional focus of ethics within the past few decades have shifted responsibility from the individual to the corporate or organizational structure. This of course does not mean that the individual shareholder has been absolved of any responsibility within the XXI century understanding of ethics; rather, it merely denotes the shift that has occurred with regards to holding each and every person responsible for the representation of ethics within the entity. This level of responsibility and the dynamics that such a self-correcting entity exhibits has led to a much higher rate of ethical issues being voiced to the general public. This has served as something of a double sided coin for the firm or organization in question. Although the ultimate demands of the business environment should encourage ethical behavior as a means of promoting the continuation of whatever firm or corporation is in question well into the future, any lapses in ethics can have detrimental effects on the way that eh entity is perceived within the public. As a function of this, allowing for each and every shareholder to be responsible for ensuring that such an eventuality does not come to pass has meant that a far greater number of shareholders are now able to “blow the whistle” and report on unethical and/or illegal aspects of the business model or actions of a particular entity. Perhaps one of the greatest reasons why such a shift has occurred over the past few decades is the understanding that different shareholders within the firm or organization are motivated by different factors. Whereas leadership and management may ultimately be focused upon greed and maximizing the bottom line of the company, the lower level shareholders will necessarily have a less nuanced interpretation of right and wrong and will be more likely to voice concern and seek to rectify a situation that affects their conscience than those that are ultimately benefitting from such unethical behavior in the first place (Clowney & Mosto, 2009). A similar change that has affected the way in which ethics is both understood and practiced within the XXI century as compared to previously is the manner in which ethics have become a systemic priority for many firms and organizations within the business world. Ultimately, it is the belief of this author that this has been effected due to the means by which organizational shareholders and owners alike have come to understand the painful and oftentimes detrimental effects that a lack of ethics or an incomplete interpretation and/or application thereof can have for the future success of the entity. Although it might be convenient to believe that ethics have become more fully developed within the business environment as a function of the fact that shareholders at each and every level have determined their presence is the morally correct way to direct and guide the entity, the fact of the matter is that like any and all business decisions, the bottom line is ultimately considered when implementing such a plan. Due to the fact that it has consistently been proven that firms that operate within a strictly ethical framework operate more efficiently, have a higher bottom line, and perpetuate their business plans longer than their competitors that do not, the underlying reason for why such actions have been taken within the recent past to instill such a level of ethics within firms that had formerly nebulous ethical institutions is more appropriately understood. However, beyond merely referencing the ways in which ethics and its overall interpretation within the business environment has changed over the past several decades, such an analysis would not be complete without at least considering the means by which the current exemplifications of ethics within the current system will likely change and morph within the coming years. As such, it would of course be hubris to expect that the current exemplification of ethics within the system is the most advanced and most appropriate that can be engaged. Surely the failures of such giants such as Enron and Lehman Brothers are an indication of the means by which even current ethical standards within large seeming monolithic firms that have a stratified and well defined code of ethics can ultimately fail. As a function of this, it is the belief of this author that the way in which companies and individuals will embrace an interpretation of ethics within the coming model will necessarily involve a more applied level of values based culture as well as responsibility. The trends themselves have already been indicated within the business world; however, due to the fact that these components lie at the very heart of an interpretation of ethics and its representation in the business environment as well as integration with the end consumer, it is reasonable to assume that this will come to be a more definitive and determinant aspect of ethics as they continue to evolve within the coming years. Ultimately, the companies that operate within the current paradigm continually seek to find new ways in which they can safeguard their reputation, avoid negative media coverage, and comply with regulations. To such an end, the establishment and differentiation of a robust and ever-evolving set of ethics is little less than a fundamental requirement to stay relevant as well as profitable within the current business environment. As function of the way in which ethics, and ethical interpretations, have changed over the past several decades, it can readily be seen how these changes have both helped to further differentiate and define the understanding of corporate ethics as well as underscore some of the most pertinent and salient shortcomings that exists within the corporate world. Ultimately, this process of evolution and growth should not be understood to me that ethics is are ultimately becoming better or worse. Instead, the rate at which society is integrating with an appreciation and understanding of ethical behavior as well as the rate in which the corporate world is seeking to codify and legislate many of these ethical decisions, it can and should be the understanding of the reader that the role that ethics play within society is likely to increase within the very near future (Bevan & Corvellec, 2007). As has been evidenced by the scandals that have rocked the banking and financial institutions within the last five years, the existence of ethics alone within corporate structure does not in and of itself guarantee that malfeasance will not occur. Rather, codification of ethics is only useful in so much as it is appreciated and understood by the relevant shareholders of the firm and/or organization in question. As has been discussed, the core means by which ethics of the XXI century have deviated from those representations that have been exhibited by previous models are fundamentally concentric upon the increase in the shared core values that a firm puts forward to its employees, shareholders, leadership, and end consumer (Shaver, 2003). This is invariably accomplished through creating and establishing something of a common language that is used intra-company by means of a stratified and all encompassing ethics policy; something that was previously neither a common practice or something that a firm sought to operate based upon. Thirdly, although prior representations of ethics were promoted by the entity in question from the very highest levels, the extent to which this was practiced throughout the firm was noticeably less than what can be recognized within the current model. Likewise, the “commitment from the top” as many have termed it was necessarily dubious. Although great strides have been made within the XXI century with regards to ethics and their implementation within the firm, there remains a massive amount of work to be done. This is not only the function of a lack of education and/or well defined ethics policies but rather the same greed, corruption, and desire for personal gain that exists within all humanity and gave way to the rise of ethical concerns and the need for robust ethics policies and practices in the first place. Rather than stating that the work is complete, this research has noted the key differentials that exist between prior representation of ethics and those that exist within the XXI century. As such, the reader/researcher should understand that the work of ethical improvement is something that is perennial and without end. References Bevan, D., & Corvellec, H. (2007). The impossibility of corporate ethics: for a Levinasian approach to managerial ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 16(3), 208-219. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00493.x Brenkert, G. G. (2010). The limits and prospects of business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 703-709. Clowney, D., & Mosto, P. eds. (2009). Earthcare: An anthology in environmental ethics. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Cuillla, J. B. (2011). Is business ethics getting better? A historical perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(2), 335-343. McLachlan, J. (2009). The right choice: Making ethical decisions on the job. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall. Shaver, R. (2003). Principia Then and Now. Utilitas, 15(3), 261-278. Read More