The Key Aspects of International Management Ethics And Values - Example

International Management Ethics and Values Name Professor Institution Course Date International management ethics and values Entry 1 In the past ten years, ethics and decision making has drawn numerous public debate due to its obvious critical role in the society, company and in personal life (Arjoon 2005, p.3). Various researches on decision-making have argued that this process is related to people with different ethical standards and what makes them to choose one thing over the other. However, Coughlan (2005, p. 47) argued that people have always used different Ethical Decision Making Approaches in their making decision depending on their personalities. In some cases people have tried to combine two approaches to try to achieve their goals. Virtue Approach and rights Approach are some of the approaches in decision making. Virtue approach is created from human virtues. According to Pojman and Fieser (2009, p.7) virtues are described as the character traits or attitudes which make us act of behave in a manner that builds our greatest potential. Some of the known often cited virtues include honesty, compassion, integrity, courage, fairness, proper ambition, prudence, self-control, modesty, fidelity, truthfulness, and generosity (Meeler 2015, p. 2). The virtue approach to ethical decision holds that there is particular ideals which human beings should live with. In addition, Russell (2013, p.68) claimed virtues prompt people pursue the principles which they have acquired throughout their lives and make them become part of their traits. The research has found out that an individual who has developed particularly virtue to make decision which matches his or her moral principles. In other words a virtuous individual is an ethical person (Meeler 2015, p.2). When making decision therefore, a person look at a type of person he or she is and how such decision reflects what he likes. Similarly, Uys and Harty (2013, p.13) stated that a virtuous person looks at how a society views him or hers and how the decision could promote his character before making a certain decision. An example is when Zuckerberg decided to drop out of university to pursue his ambition of becoming technology enthusiast, inventor and innovator. From the success perspective, Zuckerberg is an ambitious person. The society always argue that education is the key to success and to leave education for unknown path is a decision can only take an brave and ambitious person to make. In the opposite of virtue approach is the issue approach which sometimes people use to make decision. Unlike virtue approach where someone uses their virtues in making informed decision, in issue-based approach someone looks at the issue at hand, analyzes or find an alternative way to solve it (Page 2008, p.16). Velasquez et al. (2015) also claimed that unlike in virtue approach where decision is determined by character trait, in issue based, one seeks whether there is an alternate method of analyzing the issue. However, the decision is often restricted by societal moral principles. For instance, at one point Motorola sales dropped due to their high prices and because of other cheap and better phones in the market. Since the issue was to compete with other companies in the market in terms of sales and market share. The management decided to reduce the price to attract more consumers. Similarly, there was an alternative way of looking at this kind of issue, and the company decided to develop new phones which can compete with other sleek smartphones. Nevertheless, Motorola lowered the price but maintained it at a competitive range for uphold fair practice in the market. Entry 2 The course also presented deontological ethics as one of the approaches used to make decisions. Also called duty-based approach, the deontological approach implies to that the righteousness or the wrongness of a particular action which is relied on whether or not such action is in line with universal rule which everyone is willing to follow (Wood 2008, p.16). Therefore, in decision making process, one must act within the limits of the rule because it believed they are the right decisions. On the other hand, decisions which go against the universal rule are prohibited by the society. In addition, Alexander and Moore (2008) argued since a person is bounded by the universal rule, they must follow such rules when making decisions. Therefore, experts argue that ethical decision made on the basis of deontological approach. Furthermore, Wood (2008, p. 28) stated that deontological approach must meet the principle of humanity. In this perspective, decision makers ask themselves how the decisions they make treat or affect others. For instance, if the management does not engage employees in issues affecting like salary reduction, it can be seen as if the company take those staffs as just means to making profits. Even though some have though that there is no difference between deontological approach and consequantialist approach to decision making, the course has highlighted the differences in these two approaches. In contrast to the consequantialist approach, Coughlan (2005, p.45) stated that deontological approach often focuses on the particular action without reference to prospective consequence or results. Therefore, in this approach, people or managers make decision with consideration of the inherent righteousness or wrongness of the act rather than the consequence (Wood 2008, p. 36). For example when a company decide to manufacture food products, the act is inherently ethical because it enable members of the society to meet their hunger needs. However, the outcome may be that the process causes pollution as the machines pollute waste products into the environment. Despite the consequences being unethical, deontological approach does not look into that. According to Bowen (2002, p.271) it means deontological approach to decision making relies on the idea that an act is ethical or unethical depending on the right, duties and intention of people who carries it out. It also implies that people who make decision in line with deontological approach put more emphasis on the nature of the acts, obligations and duties as opposed to the resulting consequences (Wood 2008, p. 37). Further example can be draw from companies which have collapsed because of accounting fraud. The research has found out that most managers or directors who have committed accounting fraud is to get personal gain or for profit maximization. Monem (2011, p. 7) asserted that the collapse of One.Tel Company is attributed to such decision where directors Brad Keeling and Jodee Rich could award themselves large sums of money whenever the company made profit. On the other hand, they would manipulate books of accounts wherever the company made low revenues (Monem 2011, p.8). This perspective shows that deontological approach sometimes has conflicts of interest. In other words, the directors focused on the acts which they regard are right without caring on the outcomes. Therefore, the deontological approach has it advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages is that it help individual with individual gains from decisions (Wood 2008, p.51). On the other hand, one of the disadvantages is that the decision made based on deontological perspective can cause gross consequences. Entry 3 The course has also introduced that justice approach can also be used to make ethical decisions. From the course, I have learnt that justice approach to decision-making was first talked about by the philosopher, Aristotle. Meeler (2015, p.2) assumed that the philosopher argued that equals should be treated equally and the unequals unequally. The statement meant that ethical decisions need to treat all people equally. Similarly, even if you treat them unequally the process needs to be fair in terms of some defensible standard. Therefore, in making ethical decision based on justice approach, decision makers normally ask themselves on fairness of the action, how the action treats other people and whether the action shows discrimination or favoritism (Meeler 2015, p.2). Favouritism or discrimination in the context of justice approach emphasizes on how unfairly benefits are distributed among the group members with no justifiable reasons, although, these people belong to the same group (Velasquez et al 2015). It implies that justice approach establishes that ethical decisions have to be done on the basis on the standards of fairness, equality and impartiality. Experts believe that favoritism benefits some individuals with no justifiable basis for distinguishing them (Rawls 1999, p. 47). On the other hand, discrimination inflicts emotions or pain on the individuals who the decision maker does not agree with in terms of reasoning, culture and other issues. Both discrimination and favoritism are regarded as wrong and unfair. One leading figure in highly mentioned in justice approach is John Rawls who rejected the argument on utilitarian approach which supports maximizing happiness even without justice. Instead, Rawls formulated principle of justice which is primarily hypothetical often helps determine the rational choice that justice concept could need (Page 2008, p. 32). Rawls’ theory hold that individuals are making decisions, they should work under that "veil of ignorance" where they will assume that there is nothing like gender, social position, religion and other discriminatory issues within the society (Rawls 1999, p.17). From this argument, Rawls theorized that there would be two major factors in regards to ethical decision making. He hypothesized that people would have similarly rights for particular freedoms like right to life, freedom of though and speech, freedom to take part in government decisions. In addition, poor people within the society are likely to benefit after the long suffering from economic and social inequalities, but only if such moral principles are made available to all people in the society. During my course, I learnt that justice approach is concerned with types of justices or issues including distribution, procedural, recognition and capabilities (Velasquez et al. 2015). The distribution is often concerned with whether things from the decision are shared equally. The result of the decision can either be good or even bad. The distributive justice also means people who have equally capability and attributes with regards to the decision making. It therefore holds that men and women who performs similar task need to be paid equally (Rawls 1999, p.37). Procedural perspective asks whether the process of making a particular decision has been done fairly. Additionally, Rawls (1999, p.37) held that justice approach should have the aspect of recognition; the decision maker ought to ask himself or herself whether the interests of all people who are going to be affected with the decision have been taken into consideration. This is so different from utilitarian approach which only takes the interest of the decision maker into consideration. Entry 4 The course also broadly discussed sustainable world objectives as one of the approaches used to make ethical decisions. Basically, this is decision done with consideration on supporting human wellbeing of the present and future generations. On the other hand, before making such decisions, the decision maker need to ask themselves whether his stand would support ecological wellbeing of the present and future generation. Carroll and Shabana (2010, p.86) pointed out human activities like burning fossil fuel, mining or even production at a company usually have significant effects on the natural environment where human beings, plants and animals live. Such activities can cause health issues and even death. However, sustainable world objectives approach has majorly been discussed in business field with key focus being the role of firms towards the environment. Dimitrov and Davey (2011, p.86) argued that in the context of business and ethical decision making, sustainability implies to balancing the process of meeting the needs of the society, creating profits, and protection of the natural environment. There has been a contentious debate on whether a company role end only on maximizing profits or whether it also extends to solving societal problems like deforestation, climate change, pollution and species extinction. As a result companies have been making decisions to either to adopt corporate social responsibility or not. Waddock, Bodwell and Graves (2002, p.132) has argued that CSR has become a crucial factor of competitive advantage among companies as more consumers are increasingly become aware of environment issues like pollution. There are several companies with detailed ethical practices in relation to the environment, a process which have made them highly successful. Some of these companies include Starbucks, Google Inc, BHP Billiton and Microsoft Inc among others. Starbuck is one of the companies with highly rated CSR program which covers water conservation and recycling of waste products (Starbuck 2016). For instance, the company uses reusable cups in quest to reduce waste and promote green packaging. As a result, the company has been regarded highly among companies which promote sustainable development. Starbuck (2016) stated that the company also relies on green products that are agricultural products with an aim of treating planet as a significant aspect of its business. CSR has several benefits to the company because it reduces cost of operation and also improves company’s image among consumers. However, not all companies practice CSR. Some companies have actually listed CSR among their policy with disguise that they practice them but is not true. In these companies, managers and owners have allowed financial duty to be their only focus while completely ignoring ethical behavior and social responsibility (Carroll & Shabana 2010, p. 89). The argument here can be that these managers and owners use utilitarian approach in their decision making. The managers and owners make maximizes happiness by increasing their profits without carrying for the rest of the society. References Arjoon, S 2005, Corporate Governance: An Ethical Perspective, viewed 14th June 2016 from https://sta.uwi.edu/conferences/financeconference/Conference%20Papers/Session%205/Corporate%20Governance%20-%20An%20Ethical%20Perspective.pdf Alexander, L & Moore, M 2008, ‘Deontological ethics’, In Zalta, EN (ed.), The Standford encyclopaedia of philosophy, viewed 14th June 2016 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ Bowen, S A 2002, ‘Elite executives in issues management: The role of ethical paradigms in decision making’, Journal of Public Affairs, vol.2, no.4, pp.270-283, Viewed 14th June 2016 from http://facultynh.syr.edu/sbowen/images/Bowen%20Elite%20IMers.pdf Carroll, A B & Shabana, K M 2010, ‘The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review of concepts, research and practice’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol.12, no.1, pp.85-105, viewed 14th June 2016 from https://www.conference-board.org/retrievefile.cfm?filename=1156_1307550372.pdf&type=subsite Coughlan, R 2005, ‘Codes, values and justifications in the ethical decision-making process’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol.59, no.1, pp.45-53. Dimitrov, D.K & Davey, H 2011, Sustainable development: what it means to CFOs of New Zealand. Asian Review of Accounting, Vol.19, No.1, pp.86‐108 Meeler, D 2015, Handout for Central Approaches to Ethics: Five Basic Approaches to Ethical Decision-Making, viewed 14th June 2016 from http://faculty.winthrop.edu/meelerd/docs/rolos/5_Ethical_Approaches.pdf Monem, R 2011, The One-Tel Collapse: Lessons for Corporate Governance, Griffith University, pp.1-33, viewed 14th June 2016 from http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/42673/74746_1.pdf Page, J.S 2008, Peace Education: Exploring Ethical and Philosophical Foundations, Information Age Publishing, viewed 14th June 2016 from https://books.google.co.ke/books/about/Peace_Education.html?id=1Eebm_xQ7xgC&redir_esc=y Pojman, L.P & Fieser, J 2009, Virtue Theory. In Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong (6th ed.), Wadsworth, Belmont, Viewed 14th June 2016 from http://www.uttamonline.com/notes/paper-4/Ethics%20Discovering%20Right%20and%20Wrong%207th.pdf Rawls, J 1999, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, London, Viewed 14th June 2016 from https://books.google.co.ke/books/about/A_Theory_of_Justice.html?id=vcVEPc30ut0C&redir_esc=y Russell, D.C 2013, The Cambridge Companion to Virtue Ethics, Cambridge University Press, New York, Viewed 14th June 2016 from https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=xajyLCkMJgQC&pg=PR6&lpg=PR6&dq=,+The+Cambridge+Companion+to+Virtue+Ethics,+Cambridge+University+Press,+New+York&source=bl&ots=GK7hj_ZTv_&sig=hkxBCiCllWTIFlNFN41L-gmjffg&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y Starbuck 2016, Environment: Pioneering Sustainable Solutions, viewed 14th June 2016 from http://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/environment Uys, K & Harty, M 2013, Ethical decision-making, University of Pretoria, viewed 14th June 2016 from http://www.up.ac.za/media/shared/Legacy/sitefiles/file/46/9742/aacconference2ndregional/yellowwoodvenue/ethicaldecisionmakingaacconf.pdf Velasquez, M, Andre, C, Shanks, S.J. T & Meyer, M.J 2015, Thinking Ethically, Santa Clara University, viewed 14th June 2016 from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/thinking-ethically/ Waddock, S A, Bodwell, C & Graves, S B 2002, ‘Responsibility: The new business imperative’, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol.16, no.2, pp.132-148, viewed 14th June 2016 from https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https://www2.bc.edu/~waddock/NewBusImpFNL.doc Wood, A 2008, Kantian Ethics, Cambridge University, viewed 14th June 2016 from http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/philosophy/ethics/kantian-ethics?format=HB Read More