Moral Behavior and Ethical Misconduct - Essay Example

When it comes to ethics, many managers believe that ‘while in Rome, do as Romans’ - To what extent you agree or disagree with this viewpoint? Justify your answer by looking into the various ethical perspectives as outlined in the text. Name Student Number Word Count: 1904 Ethics is an important aspect that is often incorporated in day-to-day management of organizations. The success of the organizations in terms of increased profitability and sustainability is based on maintaining good business ethics (Raza & Ramzam 2013). Ethics originates from the Greek Word ethos, meaning conduct, character, and/or customs. It concerns what values and morals are considered appropriate by society members and individuals themselves. Ethics help people to decide what is wrong and bad or right and good in any given situation. With respect to management, ethics concerns who managers are in respect to their character, actions and behaviours (Wiid, Cant & Niekerk 2013). The moral development of a manager and the organizational culture in regard to its values are known to influence ethical decisions managers make when conducting their management roles. Although when it comes to ethics, many managers believe that one should follow the culture of the organization in making decisions, I do not agree with this viewpoint since it would depend on individual’s moral development. I thereby justify my view in this essay by discussing various ethical perspectives that should help managers make ethical decisions. Ethics explain standards of behaviour that are accepted in the society. It explains how people and even managers should work based on their individuals beliefs and principles in regard to what is wrong and right (Wiid et al 2013). Alternatively, organizational culture constitutes beliefs, values, customs, ideologies, attitudes and practices which bind people together in the organization. Organizational culture influences how managers and employees perform their duties and they are expected to be loyal and committed to it (Butts 2007). According to Mahdavi (2009) the way in which people behave in the organizations is highly influenced by existing standard or controls, but not really the moral behaviour. On this basis, one can argue that the ethical conduct of managers is influenced by organization’s cultural values even though there is some degree of moral drive. What then happens when faced with a scenario where the organization drives you to engage in unethical conduct? My argument is that a manager should apply his or her own judgments towards any ethical or unethical conduct, especially by considering the effect such behaviour may have on his or her moral values as well as the organizational image. To maintain their morality, managers should always be guided by their ethical values and act for the good of themselves and their organizations. For this reason, they may not simply engage in behaviours that are not ethical even if the organizational culture seems to support such behaviour. Let us now look at different perspective on ethics: Utilitarianism, Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Rawls’s Justice as Fairness, Communitarianism, and Altruism, and their applicability in this context. One of the ethical perspectives commonly applied in management and moral reasoning is utilitarianism which requires doing the greatest good for many people. This perspective is based on the fact that individuals’ ethical choices should be based on their likely consequences. Best decisions, according utilitarianism theory are more beneficial to a large number of people (Blanchard & Peale 2011). When making ethical decisions, proponents of this perspective take into consideration both short-term and long-term consequences of their determinations. Equally, utilitarians consider the ration of harm to evil when making determinations and not the complete unhappiness or happiness a choice produces (Kinicki, Williams, Scott-Ladd & Perry 2014). This means that a manager would not support a decision whose consequences are good and equally harmful. He or she would in stead go for an alternative whose consequences are moderately good and have very little cost. According to Mahdavi (2009), managers who use this approach to make decisions in the organization keep their own interests in mind; however, they do not give these interests more weight than those of others. Therefore with this perspective in mind, we would expect managers to make decisions based on the prevailing circumstances. Their determinations focus on promoting human welfare by optimizing benefits to many people (Kinicki et al 2014). Yes, managers are expected to serve in the best interest of their organizations, but some situations may prompt them to make ethical decisions without restricting themselves to what the organization stands for. This would happen as long as the consequences of their decisions are beneficial to the greatest number. However, this requires managers to be as objective as possible and not to favor themselves when making decisions in the organization. Another powerful ethical perspective that can help us understand applying of ethics in organizations is Kant’s categorical imperative. This perspective argues that moral duties are categorical and that they people must obey them without exception. In other words, people should do what is right, morally despite the consequences (Northouse 2013). This approach to moral reasoning exists in the deontological ethics category. Deontological ethics provide that people are supposed to make choices based on the premise that they have duty to support universal truths, which they identify through reason (Blanchard & Peale 2011). Thus, moral acts of managers in organizations emerge out of their intention or will to follow their duty, and not in response to situations. In this regard, a manager who is forced by the organizational culture to act in a certain way that may have positive consequences to employees in not acting morally. Alternatively, a manager who acts so based on his or her own moral values will be acting morally (Monahan 2012). Categorical imperative theory also explains that what a person considers right to him or she is right for all. Based on this criterion, certain behaviours displayed by managers, such as being kind and honoring their commitments, are always right (Northouse 2013). Therefore, this does not necessary mean that their ethical behaviours are influenced by the culture of the organization. Managers who apply this ethical perspective in their organizations often respect and encourage others’ capacity to choose for themselves and this based on one’s morality. Additionally, managers who are driven by the belief that particular behaviours are either wrong or right despite the situation in the organization are more likely to resist organizational pressure to compromise their ethical standards. Rawls’s Justice as Fairness is yet another ethical perspective applied in contemporary work environments. This perspective was developed to help resolve organizational disputes that involve resource distribution, which often result to discrimination or favoritism (Daft 2011). Ethical standards based on this perspective honor individual freedom and also supports more equitable distribution of resources or benefits in the organization that function within the framework of the society (Wiid et al 2013). The perspective insists on balancing equality and freedom and always following the principles of justice; equal liberty and equal opportunity principles. The principle of equal liberty states that protected rights, such as freedom of thought and speech, must be equally applied to every person. Alternatively, the principle of equal opportunity as Messick & Bazerman (2013) explains, states that all people should have equal chance to qualify for jobs in organizations. Based on the principle of liberty, a manager may pursue certain decisions, such as honoring contracts without pressure from the organization. Although a manager could be pressured to do so, this would be unethical according to the Rawls’s ethical perspective of justice as fairness (Kinicki et al 2014). In a different perspective, the organization may belief in the principle of equal opportunity but it may happen that a manager in the organization breaks this principle through his or her actions. Consider a situation where the Human Resource Manager recruits people discriminatory based on gender, race, or even ethnic origin, ignoring organization policy of equal opportunity. In such a scenario, we can not argue that the manager is simply practicing what the organization stands for in regard to ethics. In stead, he or she is typically influenced by individual immoral development. Another ethical perspective considered in this essay is communitarianism. This perspective states that organizations play an important role in character formation. Together, institutions in the society articulate a moral voice as they reinforce communal values (Daft 2011). According to Butts (2007) the fundamental theme of Communitarian perspective is apprehension for the common good. In organization context, employees work towards common goal, share responsibilities, express concern for each other, and reinforce common values. When employees focus on the common good they are likely to avoid selfishness and unethical behaviour (Monahan 2012). However, there are certain actions a manager who beliefs in communitarianism may resist being persuaded to doing in order to be seen to respect organization’s way of doing things. For example, a communist manager may refuse to withhold taxes to satisfy organizational needs because such an action is unethical considering the fact that it rarely benefits the entire society. This approach to moral reasoning enables managers to participate in dialogue on ethical issues in the organization in stead of simply doing what the organization thinks is right even if it does not serve the interests of the entire society (Kinicki et al 2014). Therefore, manager would use this opportunity to debate ethical issues, mold values, and evaluate policies in the organization in attempt to uphold morality, defeating the believe that when it come to ethics, one should do what Romans do when in Rome. The last ethical perspective is Altruism which focuses on concern for others irrespective of whether or not an individual benefits from it. Assisting people in need is likely to be rewarding, however, altruistic behaviour are not meant to benefit the self but the other person (Blanchard & Peale 2011). In organizational context, managers can show concern for others to enhance healthy relationships through personal initiatives without necessary being guided by organizational norms and culture. Productive management practices, such as teambuilding and mentoring have the component of altruistic behaviour, yet they may not be part of organizational customs. Additionally, through organizational citizenship behaviour, managers can help build trusting relationships (Raza & Ramzan 2013). For example, a manager may decide to work over break to assist an employee meet a deadline. Also consider a situation where the new machine operator has just been recruited in the production department of the organization. He or she may need to be guided to help produce quality parts and increase the production process, an initiative a manager may take primarily due to concern for the machine operator. Although this may not be part of the organization’s customs, a manager can practice moral values without restricting himself to what the organization is known to practice. Conclusively, we can not deny the fact that operations and conduct of the organization are guided by standards and codes of ethics that explain what employees should do and what they should not do. However, this does not mean that managers should not be guided by own moral values when making decisions in the organization. Different ethical perspectives try to explain how individuals should behave in the organization and the society at large. Utilitarianism explains that individuals’ ethical determinations should be based on their consequences while Kant’s Categorical Imperative perspective argues that people should do what is morally right irrespective of the consequences. Rawls’s Justice as Fairness focuses on balancing equality and freedom while communitarianism insists of serving the interests of entire society. On the other hand, Altruism involves concern for others. The argument developed in this essay is that managers do not solely base their ethical decisions on organizational cultural values, but their own moral development also influences their ethical determinations. Reference List Blanchard, KM & Peale, N. V 2011, The power of ethical management. Random House. Butts, J. B 2007, ‘Ethics in organizations and leadership,’ Daft, R. L 2011, The leadership experience (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson, South-Western Kinicki, A, Williams, B. K, Scott-Ladd, B & Perry, M 2014, Management: A practical introduction. McGraw-Hill Education Australia. Mahdavi, I 2009, ‘International business ethics: strategies and responsibilities’, Journal of Academic & Business Ethics, vol. 2, pp. 1-6. Messick, D. M & Bazerman, M. H 2013, ‘Ethical leadership and the psychology of decision making’, Sloan Management Review, vol. 37, no. 2. Monahan, K 2012, ‘A Review of the Literature Concerning Ethical Leadership in Organisations’, Emerging leadership journeys, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 56-66. Northouse, P. G 2013, Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raza, A & Ramzan, M 2013, ‘Determinants of Business Ethics on Multinational and Local Organizations’, Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, vol. 4, no.4. Wiid, J. A, Cant, M. C & van Niekerk, C 2013, ‘Moral Behaviour And Ethical Misconduct In Nigerian Small Businesses’, International Business & Economics Research Journal, vol.12, no. 9. Read More