Religion in the Workplace - Essay Example

Religion in the Workplace Despite the modern world’s outlook diversity among people, basic moral standards of right and wrong still exist. So it comes rather difficult to deal with religious differences in a busy and hectic business world, as they are a potential source of conflicts and discords at the workplace, particularly because of the religious diversity increasing level at the workplace environment (Hicks, 2003). Solving issues that arise from religious differences at the work place or making crucial organizational decisions that inevitably affect various members of the organization from diverse religious backgrounds is the most daunting challenge of today’s leadership. This paper will analyze religion at the workplace, namely the difficulties which religious people face because of their beliefs and the ways used by employers to solve those problems. I will analyze it in the light of such ethical theories as utilitarianism and deontology along with relativism perspective. This analysis will describe, compare, and apply the ethical theories and perspectives to religion at the workplace. Similarly, this analysis will explain how the theories and perspectives would analyze the issue of religion at the workplace, the ethical issues involved, why breaches in ethical behavior exist and how each theory can guide virtuous or ethical behavior. Ethical theories and perspectives are essential for the transformation of the organization since they help to identify and define problems and compel individuals to reason systematically while viewing issues from multiple vantage points to imply brilliant decision-making. Utilitarianism is a teleological moral theory, which states that a sign of the correctness of our actions is a manifestation of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. So the person making the moral choice should look not only for own welfare, but also for the welfare of the others. On the development of the utilitarianism theory John Stuart Mill influenced the most. He believed that the anonymous social forces are the decisive factors of how people live. He explained people’s lifestyle not only by an appeal of the atomized individuals and government regulation, but also by the functioning of society as an additional factor. However, he considered public opinion to be ambiguous. On the one hand, it can inhibit and limit the weaker groups’ viewpoint expressing, as it was described in Vickers’ “Religious discrimination in the workplace” (2010). At the same time, Mill believes that public opinion can be formed and improved during the ongoing free discussion, which involves intelligent individuals. On the other hand, as public debates are open and free, they lead to prejudice and error correction, though it does not lead us in the direction of a single truth. Free discussion at least allows expressing different perspectives and points of view to their supporters and opponents more clearly. Utilitarianism considers personal freedom, dignity, honesty, and social well-being among the central and most important values. It protects freedom of speech, freedom of the press because considers them to be socially desirable qualities. These liberal values are also important for rationality and truth search: free public debates without any internal and external obstacles are necessary conditions for our reasonable viewpoints developing. That is why utilitarian theory is being widely used in USA while solving workplace disagreements on religious grounds: not always it is clear enough without any debates whether beliefs are respectable enough in order to be protected (Vickers, 2010). Thus, all adult individuals are equal both politically and legally, whatever religious views they have. Everyone has the right on self-realization, if it does not infringe upon others. This way religious background comes to be irrelevant, as all individuals have inalienable rights, regardless of their faith. From a utilitarianism perspective, decision-making in a religiously diverse workplace addresses religious differences through the making of choices that yield the greatest benefits for the greatest possible people, irrespective of their religiosity. But here for some people comes a problem, when they face an adverse treatment: from the utilitarian point of view it comes to be logical not because of his/her religion per se, but because of refusal to conduct job duties, which causes conflict with others’ rights (Vickers, 2010). Mill believed that the moral and ethical theory is well consistent with Christian morality, as it directs our efforts to the general welfare. Even nowadays courts are more ready to determine what is and is not core with regard to Christianity than other faiths (Vickers, 2010). Anyway, when both employers and employees are unable to resolve the conflict themselves, the courts “become the avenue of last resort and will apply their own definition” of reasonable decision, which for sure will not satisfy both opponents (Cash, 2000). Nevertheless, opponents of utilitarianism are still arguing, that it does not guarantee fairness: it allows ignoring the rights of the few for the majority benefit. For instance, as it was described in “Business and Society Review”, sometimes expressing own religious view seems to be inappropriate from utilitarian point of view, as sharing own sentiments may violate others’ rights to be free from religious expression (Adams, 2012). Deontological theory is a normative approach that holds that an individual must follow their obligations to others since morality is a matter of duty and upholding one’s duty is ethically correct (“Ethical Perspectives” 2006). Deontological principles, unlike utilitarian, are based on the dictates of a mind, but not on the consequences of decisions. While one could argue that deontological approach ultimately takes into account the consequences of decisions, because in the process of reasoning by which the rules output, the results of the rules application are inevitably taken into account. A deontologist’s right choice depends on its conformity with moral norms, which must be observed without exception, thus, individuals are obliged to do what is morally right regardless of the consequences. According to the deontologists, individuals must make choices based on their duty to follow universal truths that are known intuitively or through reason; thus, moral acts emerge out of the will or intention to carry out one’s duty. Deontological principles can be broadly divided into two groups: principles, based on the rights and principles of justice. Rights-based principles are giving to a person certain moral human rights simply because he/she is a human being. These rights are associated with other people's duty not to violate other person's rights. But other person also obliged not to violate the rights of the others. There are some differences regarding to the composition of human rights, but there are no particular disagreements about the concept of human rights. So for any obstacles deontologists would consider someone’s inability to follow the rules of the company he/she is working for because of personal religious beliefs, as from a deontological view, religion at the workplace is secondary to norms and duty since moral choices are made regardless of their consequences to the diverse religions affected by the decision-making in the end. Relativism perspective holds that ethical standards, moral behavior and views of what is considered to be right or wrong are culturally determined and subject to one’s individual choice, which implies that anyone can decide what is right or wrong. Moral relativists emphasize the making of choices to suit one’s own views, thus morals and ethics can shift from one situation, person or circumstances to the next; precisely, to a moral relativist, anything goes since life has no meaning. Moral relativity has been accepted as the primary moral philosophy of modern society due to the pervasion of the idea that right or wrong can be determined by each individual and is not absolute. From a relativist perspective, every individual at the workplace is free to make their own choices following their understanding of what is right or wrong since there are no absolute truths in life; thus religious differences at the workplace, viewed from a moral relativist perspective, are subject to individuals’ interpretations. There can be distinguished several types of relativism. Naive relativism considers that a person in any situation of choice is guided by a kind of standard, but no one can make a moral judgment on the actions of another person. Actions are caused by many factors and making ethical judgment is not able to pay attention on all of them. Role relativism appears when human behavior is largely depends on the current situation and social role. A person alone may follow one kind of principles, but in a social situation the same person may follow the other ones: the manager must balance their personal feelings and interests of the company. A person while condemning the actions should pay attention on the situation and own role in it, but not on the personal, for instance, religious, identity. Social relativism drives actions of a person by norms of the group or groups. Organizations, their owners, managers and employees, as a rule, tend to do the same as in other similar organizations, explaining their behavior in terms of "industry practice", "club rules", "professional standards of conduct" or "common practice", in that way removing individual responsibility. Cultural relativism considers that there are no universal moral standards, on the basis of which a person should judge the moral and ethical norms of another society. Proponents of cultural relativism usually consider the problems of human behavior in foreign cultures, the clash of cultures, issues of cultural conformity, adaptability or rigidity. Proponents of cultural relativism believe that the best model of behavior in a world where different cultures exhibit different codes of morality, expressed briefly by well-known proverb: "Being in Rome, do as the Romans do." Thus, decision-making in addressing religious differences at the workplace may not be based on any standard guideline or absolute truth and may vary greatly in separate instances. But the idea of religion on a workplace is not as contradictory as it seems to be from the first sight: when workers bring their beliefs into the job, they create an environment of tolerance and respect around them. Thus, it means more productivity and higher morale, no matter the gender, color or creed (Ettorre, 1996). Breaches in ethical behavior at the workplace can be attributed to the corporate culture or pressure from management, which often emanates from the fierce drive by firms to live up their expectations or financial forecasts by whatever means necessary (Treviño & Brown, 2004). Such corporate culture or pressure leads to unethical behavior such as fraud, deceit and corruption by company representatives, as shortcuts to achieving their organizational goals. The ethical theories and perspectives discussed herein can be applied to guide virtues or ethical behavior at the workplace; drawing from the utilitarianism theory, ethical decision-making entails making moral choices that yield the greater good for the greater others rather than a few individuals. The deontological theory emphasis on duty as the basis for decision-making enables members of the organization to make moral choices regardless of their consequences, by upholding their duty while the moral relativity theory guides individuals in deciding wrong or right in different circumstances. But anyway, as far as there are still some basic moral standards of right and wrong, which persist despite the numerous religious diversities at the workplace, employers must increasingly balance the firm’s, the customers and the employee’s rights to express their religious beliefs and values while not subjecting others to harassment or discrimination (Von Bergen). So these timeless moral absolutes may offer a security against unethical behavior and ethical relativism. References Adams, R.J. (2012) Balancing employee religious freedom in the workplace with customer rights to a religion-free retail environment. Business and Society Review, 281-306. Cash, K.C., Gray, G.R. (2000) A framework for accommodating religion and spirituality in the workplace. Academy of management executive, 14.3, 124-133. Ettorre, B. (1996, December) Religion in the workplace: implications for managers. Management Review, 15-18. Hicks, D.A. (2003) Religion and respectful pluralism in the workplace: A constructive frameworks. Journal of religious leadership 2(1): 23-51. Treviño L.K., & Brown, M.E. (2004) The role of leaders in influencing unethical behavior in the workplace. Print. Retrieved from: Vickers, L. (2010) Religious discrimination in the workplace: an emerging hierarchy? Ecclesiastical law society, 280-303. Von Bergen, C.W. God in the Workplace. Culture & Religion Review Journal, 111-126. Read More