Ethical Issues and Theories in Business Organisation - Coursework Example

Ethical issues and theories in business organisation Introduction Ethics play an important role in foundation of sustainable business organisation and establishment of fair practice therein. In recent years, business ethics have gained significant attention in various companies worldwide. However business ethics are guided by certain set of ethical principles and theories where each theory contributes a completely new perspective towards ethical behaviour in business organisation. Ethical issues at workplace have gained sufficient momentum recently and have become subject of serious discussion among scholars (Koh and Elfred, 2004; Vitell and Festervand, 1987). The paper discusses one of the potential unethical practices that I recognised in organisation context and addresses the issue using various ethical theories. In this paper, I will be discussing four ethical theories with respect to the business related example of ethical issues. Organisational scenario The present business world is prone to multiple complexities which regularly expose employees to various ethical dilemmas at workplace. These complexities has resulted in increased level of stress and uncertainty among organisational members and thereby given rise to unethical practices such as inferior standard of delivery to client, deceptive activities within organisation, dishonesty and abusive and unacceptable behaviour (Lowinson, 2005; Ghodse, 2005). Example of unethical practice within organisation In this paper, I have selected abusive and unacceptable behaviour in organisation as my subject with respect to which I will be discussing various ethical theories. Organisational misconduct comprises a number of issues such as substance abuse at workplace, misbehaviour and harassment to colleagues and so on. Substance misuse generally comprises consumption of alcohol, illegal drugs and unacceptable dose of prescription drugs. An employee can be involved in substance misuse at workplace or before and after work hours but it will have significant negative impact on their behaviour in the organisation. The other issue is misbehaviour and harassment at workplace. This includes use of abusive language and gestures, physical and sexual harassment to other employees and taking undue credit for other’s work. The theories that I have selected for addressing these issues are deontology, consequentialism or utilitarianism theory, theory of virtue ethics and Rawl’s theory of justice (Lowinson, 2005; Ghodse, 2005). Deontology The theory of deontology is considered under non-consequentialist ethics that primarily emphasises on positive and negative implications of a particular activity. The non-consequentialist ethics suggest that functional properties of an action should be judged on the basis of moral principles irrespective of its consequences or outcomes. Deontological ethics therefore focuses on the rightness of an activity instead of the consequences of the act. This theory is also denoted as Immanuel Kant’s duty based theory (Freeman, 1994). From my understanding of deontology, I can suggest that moral rightness of an act depends significantly on the particular individual who is pursuing it. An employee who is involved in substance misuse may consider it as a source of relaxation or stress reduction. In this regard, my deontological view suggests that act of substance misuse is wrong because it has direct impact on health of an individual and also on their organisational performance. As I gathered more facts regarding the subject, it came to my notice that alcoholism and drug abuse lead to various workplace challenges such as absenteeism, poor delivery, sharp drop in productivity, ignorant attitude towards safety and precautionary measures, borrowing from colleagues, stealing, destruction of company’s property and lack of sincerity towards work. Additionally, these challenges not only hamper working capability of other employees but also deter organisational growth by polluting organisational work environment (Leukefeld, et al., 2005). However, my perception about drug abuse and alcoholism may not match with that of the substance abuser. They may consider it right because they are already addicted to it and have no clue of the same. Deontological ethics regarding organisation misbehaviour is similar to that regarding substance misuse to a certain extent but bear certain differences. For instance, victim of substance misuse are often addicted and highly involved to such a degree that they fail to give up the habit even if they want to do so. Contrastingly, misbehaviour can be related to psychological need of establishing one’s superiority in terms of their performance, gender and position with respect to others. My viewpoint regarding workplace misbehaviour is that certain employee feels they can establish their seniority in the organisation by threatening others and that they can cover up their own mistakes by taking credit of other’s work and blaming other team members. Such individuals tend to verbally or nonverbally abuse their colleagues to boost their ego. From deontological perspective, they do all these activities because they consider it right instead of considering its impact on others and on their own future (Freeman, 1994; Leukefeld, et al., 2005). Consequentialism As the name suggests, consequentialist theories emphasise mainly on consequence of an act instead of its properties. For instance, lying is by nature a wrong practice however if one lies for a future good cause then it is not a wrong practice from the perspective of consequentialist theory. It is noteworthy in this regard that theory of consequentialism is generally contrasted with that of deontology because of the differences in their approaches. Under the consequentialist approach, two theories are primarily evaluated namely, utilitarianism and egoism. In this paper, I have taken in consideration both of these concepts of consequentialism for better understanding of the issues related to workplace ethics. In the following sections, I have discussed the issues with respect to egoism and utilitarianism under separate sub-headings (Freeman, 1994; Norden, 2007). Egoism In context of business organisation, I have focussed on ethical egoism which can be further classified at three levels, namely, personal, universal and individual. Depending on these three levels, all individuals can be broadly classified in three categories. The individual egoist desires that every other person should pursue only those actions which benefit his/her self-interest. Personal egoists generally care for doing those things that support their self interest irrespective of others action. Lastly, universal egoist emphasises that everyone should pursue actions that support their individual self interest. From ethical egoistic perspective, substance abuser tends to be either individual or personal egoist whereas individuals that are involved in workplace misbehaviour tend to be individual egoist and try to influence others to do things that support their personal interest (Norden, 2007; Shaw, Barry and Panagiotou, 2010). Utilitarianism My basic understanding of utilitarianism suggests that this approach mainly focuses on the greater good. It emphasises on the ultimate happiness that an individual derive by undertaking a certain action irrespective of the negative or positive quality of the action. According to the utilitarianism approach, an individual indulged in substance misuse may advocate the act by saying that it helps them in minimising stress, raising level of concentration and alertness and often help in problems such as insomnia. In context of abusive behaviour, the expected outcome is generally dominative effect on junior, appreciation from seniors and so on. Employees involve in workplace misbehaviour so that they can make others feel inferior to them. My opinion in this regard is that egoism and utilitarian approach to unethical practices generate pleasure for an individual in short run. However in long run, their productivity may get impaired because of drug and alcohol addiction or they may be terminated from organisation because of disturbing the environmental balance within organisation premises (Freeman, 1994; Norden, 2007; Shaw, Barry and Panagiotou, 2010). Virtue ethics Virtue ethics is considered as one of the important approaches under normative ethics. The theory of virtual ethics primarily emphasizes on moral character and virtue and is the most contrasting theory with respect to deontology and consequentialism. It came to my notice that this theory was proposed by noted philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato which has been moulded presently to develop various principles of business ethics. I further gathered that virtue ethics put greater emphasis on the character and mindset of pursuer of an act instead of the act (Statman, 1997; Peterson, 2002). Virtue ethics is significantly related to morals and ethics that influence an individual’s decision making and behaviour in a given circumstance. It neither evaluates the nature or quality of an act nor studies that of the outcome or consequence. This theory is based on various humanistic aspects such as courage, honestly, loyalty and wisdom and is relatively human centric instead of being action centric unlike other approaches. I selected virtue ethics because I realised that virtue plays an important role in establishing ethics in various practices. For instance, alcoholism, drug abuse and workplace misbehaviour are not virtuous behaviour but if an individual avoid this due to fear of future consequences then he/she is not a virtuous person. A virtuous person is one who avoids such practices because they are morally wrong (Statman, 1997). In my opinion, the theory of virtue ethics is most appropriate regarding management of organisational ethics because it affects a person directly not through their actions. From perspective of this theory, my view is that substance abuse and workplace misconduct affects personal as well as professional life of an individual. Such employees will not be respected by colleagues as well as family members in long run. In this regard, I could think of two possible consequences. The individual either may get motivated by moral conscientiousness and give up these habits or may feel depressed and take certain drastic step to avoid humiliation (Statman, 1997; Peterson, 2002). Rawl’s theory of justice The theory of justice was proposed by John Rawl where he proposed a set of principles that helps in determining fair resolution of interest conflicts among different individuals within a society, in this case, organisational setup. The author essentially emphasised on fairness as the primary component of this theory. The author have put forward that one’s action should not be such that it worsen the condition of the least advantaged member within a community. In context of this paper, I related the community with an organisation where the least advantaged group include new trainees who are on the process of learning corporate culture. Substance abuse and organisational misconduct can have significant negative impact on the new employee as they have little knowledge of the actual organisational culture and may perceive these behaviours as a part of the workplace culture or environment (Rawls, 2009; Scanlon Jr, 1973). The theory put significant importance on equality, fair treatment and appropriate rights. It can be translated in a manner that every employee within an organisation deserved to be treated in a fair manner and with respect and equality and have common rights. Therefore, it can be put forward that no employee should take measures to force seniority or superiority on other employees unless established in the organisational hierarchy. In context of substance misuse and workplace misbehaviour, my opinion is that such employees should be warned prior taking any disciplinary action. In addition, organisation’s code of conduct should have these rules and regulations mentioned in a clear manner and also that their implementation will be done irrespective of position, power and gender (Rawls, 2009; Scanlon Jr, 1973; Leukefeld, et al., 2005). In my opinion, strictness and clarity in regulation will inculcate practice of fairness within the organisation and will also prevent acts of misconduct such as alcoholism, abusive behaviour and act of harassment within the premises. Another advantage of practical implementation of this theory is that when employees follow certain regulation for a long period of time, it gets imbibed in their natural behaviour and consequently, influences their behaviour outside the organisation as well (Scanlon Jr, 1973, Leukefeld, et al., 2005). Conclusion In this paper, I have tried to related habits and behaviour of employees at workplace with various theories of ethics. In this process of development of the paper, I learned that almost all ethical theories have ancient roots and are essential part of various contemporary theories of business ethics. I have broadly discussed four theories with respect to substance misuse and misbehaviour at workplace. I observed that deontology and consequentialism are mainly related to properties of an action and its consequences respectively and helps in understanding the same in detailed manner. However, virtue ethics and theory of justice focus on rightness and fairness of an act, thereby suggest measures of correcting behaviour. Overall, the paper was a learning opportunity for me regarding organisational ethics. Reference list Freeman, S., 1994. Utilitarianism, deontology, and the priority of right. Philosophy & public affairs, 23(4), pp. 313-349. Ghodse, H. (Ed.)., 2005. Addiction at work: tackling drug use and misuse in the workplace. Britain: Gower Publishing Ltd. Koh, H. C. and Elfred, H. Y., 2004. Organizational ethics and employee satisfaction and commitment. Management Decision, 42(5), pp. 677-693. Leukefeld, C. G., McDonald, H. M. S., Stoops, W. W., Reed, L. and Martin, C., 2005. Handbook of Adolescent Behavioral Problems. US: Springer. Lowinson, J. H., 2005. Substance abuse: A comprehensive textbook. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Norden, V., 2007. Virtue ethics and consequentialism in early Chinese philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peterson, D. K., 2002. Deviant workplace behavior and the organizations ethical climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 47-61. Rawls, J., 2009. A theory of justice. Harvard: Harvard university press. Scanlon Jr, T. M., 1973. Rawls theory of justice. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, pp. 1020-1069. Shaw, W. H., Barry, V. E. and Panagiotou, S., 2010. Moral issues in business. Canada: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Statman, D. (Ed.)., 1997. Virtue ethics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Vitell, S. J. and Festervand, T. A., 1987. Business ethics: conflicts, practices and beliefs of industrial executives. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(2), pp. 111-122. Read More