Organisational Behaviour and Human Resource Management - Coursework Example

Topic: Organisational Behaviour and Human Resource Management BEM2004 Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction Ethics is a term that is used to refer to moral behavior and the expectations of the society regarding the behavior of its members in accordance with the established doctrines. Business ethics comprises the values and norms that an organization adheres to in its relations with other businesses. It is the code of conduct that is unique to an organization. In an ideal situation, an organization adopts values and customs that enable it to increase its competitiveness. It makes every effort to ensure that its products are preferred by consumers and that its public relations are accomplished without difficulties. Ethical business practice prolongs the life of an organization and promotes consumer satisfaction among other stakeholders. This paper evaluates whether business ethics is an oxymoron justifying the arguments through ethical theories that include; virtue ethics, deontology, utilitarianism and Marxism. Business Ethics Businesses are compelled to remain flexible due to the inconsistency of the contemporary operating environments. Each competitor strives to acquire a greater market share than other players, which sometimes leads to negligence in regard to corporate ethics. Various situations require to be dealt with differently and sometimes managers are perplexed regarding what business ethics necessitates in certain circumstances. In some instances, acting morally may be costly or may be hindered by obstacles. For these reasons, Velasquez (2002) observes that referring to ‘business ethics’ as an oxymoron precisely identifies ethics as a challenge. On the other hand, as presented in the definition of ethics, if an organization is to remain ethical in its operations, it has to observe the laid out values and principles. In other words, no matter how pressing the situation is, ethical values have to be adhered to for business ethics to be accomplished. In essence, many organizations avoid being perfectionists in business ethics even though they insist on ethical standards when dealing with stakeholders. This makes them escape the unintentional negative consequences of fanatical business ethics (DesJardins, 2008). Various ethical theories portray business ethics as an oxymoron. For example, virtue ethics is a theory that sheds light on the boundary between balanced decision making and unethical behavior in business (West, 2003). Sometimes financial managers are faced with the dilemma of determining the appropriate step to take when the business is faced with challenges, yet the set business values have to be adhered to. The right decision that may save a company from collapsing may be regarded as unethical in a different perspective if the common values are not observed. Rather than being restricted to a set of conceptual rules, a manager maintains his/her professional role and appraises an ethically thought-provoking decision within that role. In other words, he/she is not bound by what is believed to be ethical while acting for the good of the organization (Maximiano, 2003). For instance, the finance director in a company X realizes that the organization will incur losses owing to an abrupt change in exchange rates. The company maintains corporate social responsibility and runs a philanthropic community program which is among its core values that costs 10% of its proceeds. The manager is faced with the dilemma of suspending the program to minimize the company’s expenditure or to retain the program. The first alternative will lead him to disregard the company’s ethical values. However, as a professional, his work is to ensure that the company does not incur a loss. The manager has to make an ethically charged decision and suspend the program until the operating environment regains normalcy. According to virtue ethics, he will be regarded as a good manager due to his intelligence that helps in maintaining efficiency and profitability, while on the other hand he is not a good manager in the sense that he disregards one of the organization’s core values thereby being unethical (Kidder, 2003). Kant’s theory of deontology can also elucidate the issue of business ethics as an oxymoron. The theory stipulates that people in an organization should not be regarded as means to an end. In other words, ethical organizations should not put money before the people, and all actions should be universally applied to all persons within the organization (Bowie, 1999). This theory is applicable in various situations within flourishing businesses such as human resource training, career advancement as well as performance management. However, no matter the efforts that organizations may employ in their operations, the essence of human resources remains to help the business to accomplish its ultimate goal of competitiveness and profitability. Non-profitable organizations may have a different goal of improving the standards of living of a community and hence may not use employees as means to an end, which according to Kant’s theory is ethical. On the contrary, if a company has to make profits, it has to ensure that competent employees are employed to help it maintain competitiveness. Under such situations, training and development, benefits and rewards are meant to empower and to motivate the employees to work harder for the goals of the organization to be achieved. This means the organization uses people as means to an end and therefore according to Kant’s theory business ethics is not adhered to (Haybron, 2003). Utilitarianism in business ethics is mainly significant in the decision making process. Organizations tend to get the most of positive outcomes, in particular ethically and financially while minimizing undesirable results. In other words, utilitarianism is mainly focused on the results rather than the methods used to accomplish the outcome. In business ethics, the theory depicts that if the end result causes happiness to a large number of people, or that the end causes the least damage, then the end gives good reason for the means (West, 2003). The utilitarian theory may present a paradox in business ethics since no matter how large the number of people benefiting from the outcome, there is always a minority that has different needs. For example, if a business computerizes all of its operations and three quarters of its workforce are computer literate, the result makes majority of the people in the organization happy and therefore according to the utilitarian theory, the decision is ethical. However, the minority’s needs are not put in to consideration and they may never use the new technology. Worse still, they may end up loosing their positions since they are no longer useful to the organization. In this perspective, the decision is unethical (Hartman, 2004). Marxism on the other hand portrays business owners as capitalists who are focused on exploiting the workers to accomplish their interests. In business, exploitation of labor among other resources is the key to success. The term exploitation insinuates a situation whereby people work unenthusiastically. On the contrary, workers eagerly seek employment so that they can make ends meet. The pressure that compels people to work is the desire to improve their living conditions. Conversely, the reason why investors forgo comforts to establish businesses with their money is to earn profits. They are therefore under no obligation to make their employees’ lives comfortable (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2009). However, many organizations understand the significance of business ethics and therefore strive to accomplish employee satisfaction. Organizations develop ethical standards that enhance human resource capacity so that they maintain competence. Marx condemned the use of human labor to maximize profits. Marxism portrays employers as capitalists who benefit from the efforts of other humans without compensating the real value of labor. In his view, Marx viewed profits as the value that remains from what the workers produce after they are paid their wages (Pareek, 2000). In other words, workers are not paid what they produce but rather, they get only a fraction of the total amount. In an ideal situation, this theory challenges ethical organizations to pay workers their full compensation, which is all that they produce, meaning that there should be no profits. In essence, businesses must make profits for them to remain in operation and hence if Marxism was put in to consideration when defining business ethics, all profitable organizations would be regarded as unethical. This theory contradicts the meaning of ‘business ethics’ and confirms that the term is an oxymoron (William, 2009). Gallagher (2005) argues that an observer’s viewpoint is completely different from that of the people in business. Cynics of business ethics are usually people who have no interest in business. Nevertheless, investors understand that business ethics is significant for success. Most importantly, workers and managers have to maintain ethical standards. If managers misuse funds, the organizational goals can not be accomplished. If they assault employees in the workplace, they may lack motivation and hence become incompetent. The organization may also loose money through numerous legal feuds. On the other hand, if employees engage in unethical behavior, they are likely to steal from the organization or deceive customers thereby tarnishing its image (Seglin, 2006). Customers are also a key ethical subject in business since their behavior may greatly influence success. For example, supermarkets or retail stores require ethical behavior among customers so that they pay for whatever they pick from the displayed items. Dishonest customers can not return excess money given by mistake to them by the cashier. Shoplifting is also among the most costly practices for businesses and therefore ethical practices have to be promoted among customers on top of surveillance. Generally, organizations are compelled to take business ethics in to consideration by virtue of the fact that they are part and parcel of humanity. People desire to be trusted, valued and treated respectably. Naturally, they accomplish routine tasks through loyalty and mutual trust. Business people are held accountable for their actions and can be sued in a court of law if found guilty of unethical behavior. This is an indication of the seriousness by which the society regards business ethics. This perspective disputes the view that business ethics is an oxymoron (Rothman & Scott, 2004). Businesses thrive not by absolute right but rather, the government has significant influence through a social contract between it and the investors. It grants them incentives so that they can accomplish their goals. However, governments do this with the consideration that businesses will respect the social contract and uphold ethical values. The businesses that do not adhere to the ethical values are penalized and hence they strive to maintain ethical standards and engage in activities that benefit the pubic. In essence, mutual trust exists between business people and consumers. Consumers trust that it is of the desired quality especially due to the fact that they are unable to carry out tests before consuming, more so in food products. The seller on the other hand trusts that consumers will not adulterate the product and claim compensation. Business ethics is therefore a significant aspect for success among investors (Laura, 2004). Conclusion In some situations, acting ethically in business might have adverse repercussions. Business ethics requires total observance of ethical standards. Various theories can be used to explain the paradox in business ethics. These include; virtue ethics which contends that businesses need not be limited to abstract rules that define ethical behavior in business. Rather, they can apply their professional skills to resolve an ethically challenging decision. Kant’s theory expounds the issue of business ethics portraying it as an oxymoron. The theory asserts that ethical organizations should not use people as means to an end. However, this contradicts the meaning of business since its purpose is to utilize human resources to accomplish goals. Utilitarianism ignores the needs of the minority who may not be favored by a widely accepted decision. The business may act unethically if it leaves a group of its stakeholders disillusioned, yet the theory accepts as ethical the actions that present minimal risks and most positive outcomes. In an ideal ethical practice, the business should strive to make everybody satisfied. Marxism portrays profitable businesses as unethical since their profits are the value that the workers are denied. However, for a business to remain in existence, it has to make profits. The four theories depict business ethics as an oxymoron. Nevertheless, it remains a core aspect of businesses since goals can not be accomplished without ethics. References Bowie, N. E. 1999. Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective, Wiley-Blackwell DesJardins J., 2008. An Introduction to Business Ethics, McGraw-Hill. Ferrell O. C. & Fraedrich, J. 2009. Business Ethics 2009 Update: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, South-Western College Pub  Gallagher, S. 2005. “A strategic response to Friedmans critique of business ethics”. Journal of Business Strategy. Vol. 8 pp 106-111 Hartman, L., 2004. Perspectives in Business Ethics, McGraw-Hill. Haybron, D. M. 2003. “What Do We Want from a Theory of Happiness?”  Metaphilosophy.  Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 305-329. Kidder, R. M. 2003. How Good People Make Tough Choices: Resolving the Dilemmas of Ethical Living, Harper Paperbacks Laura, H. 2004. Perspectives in Business Ethics, McGraw-Hill/Irwin Maximiano, J. M. B. 2003. Corporate social responsibility: Basic principles and best practices: Historico-philosophical issues in international business. Manila: DLSU University Press. Pareek, U., 2000. Actualizing Managerial Roles Studies in Role Efficacy, Mcgraw Hill Publishing Rothman, H. & Scott, M. 2004. Companies with a conscience. Denver, CO: MyersTempleton. Seglin, J. L. 2006. The Right Thing: Conscience, Profit and Personal Responsibility in Todays Business, Smith-Kerr  Velasquez, M. G. 2002. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall West, H., 2003. An Introduction to Mills Utilitarian Ethics, Cambridge University Press. William, H. S. 2009. “Marxism, Business Ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility” Journal of BusinessEthics Vol. 84, 4 pp 83-101 Read More