Ethical Issues in Contemporary Strategic HRM - Coursework Example

Name Course Instructor Date Ethical issues in strategic HRM Introduction Ethics cuts across all fields of knowledge particularly those that lead to professional practice. The field of human resource management is therefore not an exception. Out of the many ethical issues in contemporary strategic human resource management (SHRM), there are two very critical ones, namely, selection and compensation of workforce. Selection is important in SHRM today because it is a key determinant of the calibre and competency of employees that a company is likely to have and this correlates with the performance of an organisation. On the other hand, compensation is what drives most people to work given that it a source of their motivation. This discussion therefore focuses on these two ethical issues relating them with four ethical frameworks which include utilitarianism, Kant deontology, rights and Rawlsian justice. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is an ethical perspective that was propounded by a philosopher known as Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832). Jeremy had a belief that it is possible to make the world more pleasurable for people in it. Furthermore, he claimed that there are two very powerful masters that determine people’s fate as dictated by nature, these are pleasure and pain (Olsaretti & Stein, 2011). It is only natural for human to run towards those things that give them pleasure while avoiding those that cause pain. Utilitarianism is therefore more of a consequential theory of morality. Therefore, according to utilitarians, an act is considered right or wrong depending on whether it provides the greatest pleasure for the greatest part of a population or not. Another philosopher who happened to be Bentham’s student, John Stuart Mill (1806-1876), argued that the utility ought to be measured in terms of happiness and not pleasure. He added by saying that this happiness should be societal rather than personal for the benefit of majority (Olsaretti & Stein, 2011). Selection and compensation as ethical in SHRM are highly informed by utilitarianism. During recruitment, human resource managers have a duty of making sure that the selection process is free and fair so that everybody involved can be pleased afterwards (Segon, 2011). The criteria used for selection should also be based on merit, experience and competence of an applicant and there should absolutely be no discrimination. Compensation of employees in various organisations should also be commensurate with the amount of work done together with the time taken. This is the reason why labour standards have been put into place particularly in Australia to issue a minimum wage that any employee should be paid (Caldwell, Do, Pham & Tuan, 2011). As reported by the Sunday Business Post (2014) in article named Part-time workers: the legal obligations, part-time employees also need to enjoy the privileges there full time counterparts enjoy. These two groups of employees do the same work but the only difference is their time and schedule of work. As a way of promoting societal happiness as advocated for by utilitarianism, the post suggested formulation of appropriate processes and policies of helping part-time workers so that they can work at the time of their convenience. However, the utilitarian solution provided to this issue about part-time workers has certain loopholes. It would be very challenging to substantiate and to predict the benefits the whole lot of part time workers has incurred. Another danger that is also likely to occur is imbalance in the distribution of these benefits because regions with a stronger voice of part-time workers may benefit more than those with very few part-time workers. In future, such solutions should be made more specific to various groups within the targeted population in order to take care of the needs of the minority. Kant deontology A moral theorist known as Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) is accredited to the development of Kant deontology theory. Unlike utilitarianism, Kant deontology is a non-consequential perspective of ethics. Kant explained that morality is derived from reason and not utility because human beings are the only rational creatures and this is what makes them different from animals (Varden, 2011). He insisted that human beings have a duty of being ethical because they can reason better. He further explained that the motive of an act is what qualifies it to be right or wrong. According to Kant, an organisation that promises new employees better payments as a sourcing strategy on to overwork them later, is an unethical organisation. One that offer low payment but promises increment following the performance of an employee is ethical. This means that an action was considered right only if informed by good will. In other words, that which has the greatest good is the good will. Kant stresses on acting from duty and not just mere conformation to duty. Therefore, according to Kant, the most important thing is the intent of behaviour and not its results or consequences (Varden, 2011). In contemporary strategic human resource management, the issue of selection (recruitment) and that of compensation can have some aspects of the Kantian deontology. During selection, HR managers must be very rational in choices they will make (Gotsis & Kortezi, 2013. Job applicants are usually forced to undergo a very intensive test so that only best out of the best can be selected. Therefore, HR managers act from a point of duty to have the best employees in their companies. When it comes to compensation of employees, reason as explained by Kant must also apply. Employees should be given reasonable amount of payment meaning that it should not be too high or too low. The intention of this is to take care of the welfare of employees while at the same time profiting the organisation (Becker, 2010). According to Donovan (2015) in the article “Workers' Compensation -- Occupational Disease”, it was noted that there was an increase in the number of employees who suffered from occupational diseases as well injuries. Campaigns had been increased for such workers to be compensated given that they were suffering as a result of the kind of jobs they were doing. This issue was addressed by giving them additional payments and medical allowances. Looking at it from a Kantian point of view, the only ethical solution issue was to compensate them with intention of making them feel a bit more comfortable even as they continue working. Kant deontology believes in generalism and universality of moral principles and this may not always be the case. From the case above, it is not true compensation of employees suffering from occupational diseases is possible for all organisations. At the same time, such compensation may also prove to be unsustainable in cases where the survival of an organisation is at stake. As a recommendation, it is ideal to issue all employees with medical cover to take care of any medical condition during the course of one’s employment. Rights Technically speaking, a right simple means the claim which suggests that an individual deserves to be treated in a particular way. Looking at it from a different angle, a right can also be that which chooses for himself or herself. One point that however needs to be understood clearly is that when an individual has a right, it does not mean they are at the liberty of doing or saying whatever they want (Carnegie Mellon University, 2015). Rights are an obligation to other people to treat you in a particular manner. They do not do it as choice but rather as a duty that must be performed whether they like it or not. Rights are divided into two categories, positive rights and negative rights. Negative rights, which are also referred to as liberties, are those rights that entitle people to be left on their own and decide what they want to do based on their preference without any interference. Such rights are termed as negative because they perceive other people as a hindrance to their achievement. Examples of such rights include right to privacy and right to free speech. On the other hand, positive rights which also known as welfare rights are those that entitle the provision of something to someone. The reason why they are regarded as positive is that they coerce others to people to perform certain positive duties to other whether they like it or not. An example of such a right is the right to healthy and secure working environment (Carnegie Mellon University, 2015). Rights can also be applied when looking at three ethical issues in this paper. It is the right of job applicants to undergo a free and fair selection process during recruitment in an organisation. For obvious reasons, compensation is also a right of all employees. Employees have the right to demand for payments as well as increments even if it means boycotting their duties at work (Stansbury, 2009). In an article titled ‘Ethical and responsible recruitment must be felt by job seekers’ posted in the Asia News Monitor (2015), it was highlighted that poor job seekers, migrant workers and other minorities should be able to feel transparency and fairness during job recruitment processes. This proves the point that peoples’ rights ought to be respected by embracing ethics in all human SHRM practices. However, it should not be forgotten that rights come with certain responsibilities, in that, as people enjoy they rights, they should do so within the confines of non-interference with the rights of others. Unfortunately, though, the risk that comes with rights is that sometimes they can be misinterpreted and this may lead to behaviors that are selfish. In addition, in an organisational context, rights can bring unnecessary liberties among employees which may eventually affect efficiency and productivity at the work place. As a recommendation, people should be given proper education on their rights and freedoms to avoid misinterpretations. Rawlsian justice Rawlsian justice also known as the egalitarian theory of justice aims at developing principles that are acceptable to all human beings based on their rationality, respect and universality (Bishop, 2008). Rawls assumed that in the initial stages of life everybody was ignorant about not only themselves but also even their situations. Despite this ignorance, human beings are rational and have so much value for their own good. With that in mind therefore, it is possible to choose important justice principles impartially and objectively because all of them are rational, have related self-interests and in exactly the same situation (Bishop, 2008). Rawls therefore concluded that it was possible for human beings to come to an agreement as long as they have equal conditions of mutual self-interest and the freedom of choice, hence the term principle of distributive justice (David & Kimberly, 2012: Marens, 2007). Egalitarian theory of justice still remains very relevant when tackling selection and compensation issues in contemporary SHRM. Everyone deserves an equal share and treatment based on the work they do. Selection of employees for recruitment by any company should always be fair for all the applicants (Painter-Morland, 2008). Everyone should be given an equal opportunity to present themselves and prove that they are capable of undertaking the duties that will be given upon employment with high level of competence. When it comes to compensation, it should be done with much fairness. This means that employees who do the same job or who are at the same receive similar pay. Unjust compensation in any company might lead to strikes and poor performance of a company that does not auger well for the future. According to the Sunday Business Post (2014), the part-time workers were given justice when they were allowed to have equal work benefits as those of their counterparts. This was the only free and fair way of solving the stalemate as dictated by the principles of justice. However, the use these principles of justice can at times lead to reduction of rights of other in order to strike a balance which ought not to be the case (Mishra and Sharma, 2010). It can therefore be recommended that proper assessment be done before implementing any justice principle to avoid harming other in the process. Conclusion Compensation and selection of employees are very serious contemporary SHRM ethical issues that call for the attention of all HR personnel. Despite the fact that the theoretical frameworks discussed above differ in some way, they are all aimed at proper management of human resource of organisations. The findings of this work will enable the adoption of all-important aspects of the four frameworks (utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, rights and Rawlsian justice) in the implementation of SHRM. An integration of the principles of these frameworks will definitely yield maximum benefits in the overall HRM practice. Reference List "Business Ethics; Carnegie Mellon University Reports Findings in Business Ethics (Confucian Ethics and Labor Rights)", 2015, Real Estate & Investment Business,, pp. 296. Becker, W.S. (2010). Ethics in human resources: An exercise involving new employees. Journal of Human resource Education, 4:27-34. Bishop, J. D.: 2008, ‘For-Profit Corporations in a Just Society’, Business Ethics Quarterly 18(2), 191–212. Caldwell, C., Do, X.T., Pham, T.L. & Tuan, A. 2011, "Strategic Human Resource Management as Ethical Stewardship", Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 171-182. David, A.M. & Kimberly, K.M. 2012, ""Equality Theory" as a Counterbalance to Equity Theory in Human Resource Management", Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 133-144. Donovan, D. 2015, Workers' Compensation -- Occupational Disease - Findings of Fact - Competent Evidence - Hand Injuries, Raleigh, N.C.North Carolina Lawyers Weekly05 Jan 2015. Gotsis, G. & Kortezi, Z. 2013, "Ethical paradigms as potential foundations of diversity management initiatives in business organizations", Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 948-976. Gotsis, G. and Kortezi, Z. (2010), “Ethical considerations in organizational politics: expanding the perspective", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 93 No. 4, pp. 497-517. http://www.openculture.com/2009/10/michael_sandel_on_justice_lecture_iii.html(22:20-27:15) Italy urged to formalise BD workers' recruitment process 2015, Dhaka. , The Financial Express 20 Feb 2015. Marens, R. (2007), “Returning to Rawls: social contracting, social justice, and transcending the limitations of Locke”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 63-76. Mishra, N. and Sharma, G. (2010).Ethicalorganisation and employees. Asian Journal of Management Research, 4:59-80. OLSARETTI, S. & Stein, M. 2011, "Distributive Justice and Disability: Utilitarianism against Egalitarianism", Utilitas, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 355-358. Painter-Morland, M. 2008. Business ethics as practice.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palomino, P.R. and Martinez, R. (2011). Human resource management and ethical behaviour: Explaining the role of training in the Spanish banking sector. Ramon Llull Journal of Applied Ethics, 2:69-88. Part-time workers: the legal obligations 2014, Cork. , Sunday Business Post 13 July 2014. Philippines: Ethical and responsible recruitment must be felt by job seekers -Baldoz 2015, Bangkok.Asia News Monitor04 Mar 2015. Segon, M. (2011). Managing organisational ethics: Professionalism, duty and HR practitioners. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, 5:13-25. Stansbury, J, 2009, Reasoned moral agreement: Applying discourse ethics within organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19: 33-56, VARDEN, H. 2011, "A Kantian conception of global justice", Review of International Studies, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 2043-2057. Read More

As reported by the Sunday Business Post (2014) in article named Part-time workers: the legal obligations, part-time employees also need to enjoy the privileges there full time counterparts enjoy. These two groups of employees do the same work but the only difference is their time and schedule of work. As a way of promoting societal happiness as advocated for by utilitarianism, the post suggested formulation of appropriate processes and policies of helping part-time workers so that they can work at the time of their convenience.

However, the utilitarian solution provided to this issue about part-time workers has certain loopholes. It would be very challenging to substantiate and to predict the benefits the whole lot of part time workers has incurred. Another danger that is also likely to occur is imbalance in the distribution of these benefits because regions with a stronger voice of part-time workers may benefit more than those with very few part-time workers. In future, such solutions should be made more specific to various groups within the targeted population in order to take care of the needs of the minority.

Kant deontology A moral theorist known as Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) is accredited to the development of Kant deontology theory. Unlike utilitarianism, Kant deontology is a non-consequential perspective of ethics. Kant explained that morality is derived from reason and not utility because human beings are the only rational creatures and this is what makes them different from animals (Varden, 2011). He insisted that human beings have a duty of being ethical because they can reason better. He further explained that the motive of an act is what qualifies it to be right or wrong.

According to Kant, an organisation that promises new employees better payments as a sourcing strategy on to overwork them later, is an unethical organisation. One that offer low payment but promises increment following the performance of an employee is ethical. This means that an action was considered right only if informed by good will. In other words, that which has the greatest good is the good will. Kant stresses on acting from duty and not just mere conformation to duty. Therefore, according to Kant, the most important thing is the intent of behaviour and not its results or consequences (Varden, 2011).

In contemporary strategic human resource management, the issue of selection (recruitment) and that of compensation can have some aspects of the Kantian deontology. During selection, HR managers must be very rational in choices they will make (Gotsis & Kortezi, 2013. Job applicants are usually forced to undergo a very intensive test so that only best out of the best can be selected. Therefore, HR managers act from a point of duty to have the best employees in their companies. When it comes to compensation of employees, reason as explained by Kant must also apply.

Employees should be given reasonable amount of payment meaning that it should not be too high or too low. The intention of this is to take care of the welfare of employees while at the same time profiting the organisation (Becker, 2010). According to Donovan (2015) in the article “Workers' Compensation -- Occupational Disease”, it was noted that there was an increase in the number of employees who suffered from occupational diseases as well injuries. Campaigns had been increased for such workers to be compensated given that they were suffering as a result of the kind of jobs they were doing.

This issue was addressed by giving them additional payments and medical allowances. Looking at it from a Kantian point of view, the only ethical solution issue was to compensate them with intention of making them feel a bit more comfortable even as they continue working. Kant deontology believes in generalism and universality of moral principles and this may not always be the case. From the case above, it is not true compensation of employees suffering from occupational diseases is possible for all organisations.

Read More