Previous Employment Experience - Literature review Example

Dignity and meaningful work: A reflective analysis of previous employment experience YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE Dignity and meaningful work Introduction The concept of dignity and meaningful work deal with establishing a positive environment which promotes autonomy, builds job satisfaction, offers employees a voice in organisational matters, ensures fair and equal opportunities, and generally provides mutual respect for employees and colleagues. This is, of course, an idealist’s perspective suggesting that in the process of attaining organisational success, the workplace environment can provide for worker dignity and that management team members will be supportive and focused on satisfying the needs of diverse employees who require respect and esteem in order to realise increased organisational commitment. However, Hodson and Roscigno (2004) iterate that established goals related to organisational success and ensuring dignity of workers are often at odds with one another. Organisations that seek competitive advantage and improved revenue production can theoretically be structuring themselves to exploit workers to attain these goals rather than focusing on building employee capacity and recognising the holistic value of employees as important contributors to organisational success. In this reflective analysis, I will be describing important perspectives from Kantian deontology described by Olson (1967) as well as Cody and Lynn (1992) which describe the moral and ethical obligations for promoting dignity in a social and organisational governance context. Additionally, I will be comparing real-world organisational experiences related to the imbalance between achieving organisational goals and ensuring employee dignity to provide evidence of the problems of dignity in contemporary work environments. Literature review The Kantian deontological perspective strongly iterates that all members of society have an obligation to respect all persons (Mack 1998) and that we, as a society, should obey principles that are absolute, such as integrity and honesty, regardless of the consequences for this decision-making (Cody and Lynn 1992). When interacting with others, under the Kantian perspective, the appropriate responses are restraint and illustration of respect. Principles of dignity relate to sociological rules and established ethical codes which describe a moral duty to others for ensuring mutual good will and benevolence. Contemporary human resources practitioners support this notion, suggesting that organisations should work toward speaking to the minds and hearts of employees to gain their commitment, with an emphasis on trust-building, mutual respect, coaching and mentoring in order to ensure that employees feel like valued members of the organisation (Armstrong 2007). Theorists in organisational studies have come to recognise that the quality of leader/member exchanges will dictate employee self-esteem and that the establishment of autonomous working conditions improve motivation and organisational commitment (Chaudhry and Javed 2012; Kotter 2001). Employees are provided opportunities to sustain their dignity in this type of organisational environment. However, not all organisations adhere to the deontological view that there is a moral duty to provide mutual respect and autonomy in the contemporary workplace. In fact, organisations that still have managerial structures that are aligned with theories of Scientific Management establish very strict employee control systems as a means of coercing job role performance (Mullins 2004). Scientific Management ideology believes that employees can be encouraged to be productive and motivated with systems and policies that ensure compliance with little consideration granted toward build a positive repertoire between managers and subordinates. Hence, it is common in these centralised structures for leaders to micromanage employees and establish punishment consequences for failing to meet productivity and performance standards. Command and control systems tend to deplete maintaining dignity as employees of the organisation as it strips them of autonomy, having a voice in decision-making and generally depletes the ability to find job satisfaction. More effective organisations that have unified and committed cultures reject Scientific Management as it does not adhere to the deontological view of dignity and respect. Instead, they are transformational, with emphasis on leadership, whereby leaders role model desired behaviours, open effective lines of communication, and become a teaching and coaching resource for employees to build their competencies and knowledge (Eisenbach, Watson and Pillai 1999). Under a transformational model, managers recognise that the consequences of stripping employees of their dignity through control systems and punishment systems could lead to inferior organisational performance, deplete potential for job role satisfaction and make it more difficult to achieve organisational goals and objectives. Transformational management is especially important in organisations that have diverse employee populations that hail from collectivist cultures. In collectivist nations, people are considered to be we-conscious, where their personal identity is based largely on social sentiment of groups to which they are members and where loss of reputation is critical for self-esteem (Cheung, et al. 2008). Managers that publicly chastise employees in this type of workplace environment erode one’s reputation and create hostilities for challenging one’s standing in the in-group as it pertains to their competency levels and performance. Hence, it would appear that discretion in offering performance evaluations is one methodology for ensuring the sustainment of dignity under the deontological perspective. Furthermore, gaining trust between managers and employees is critical not only for achieving organisational goals, but to ensure that employees perceive mutual respect and admiration which is aligned with the Kantian perspective of ethics and morality. Farrell and Knight (2003) iterate that trust or distrust is deeply embedded in the rules and relationships by which individuals seek to gain acceptance by others. Effective organisations preserve dignity of employees, therefore, by behaving in a manner that is trustworthy, providing a series of incentives and policies that motivate workers and recognise their talents as valuable organisational contributors. The establishment of trust in management is absolutely critical for guaranteeing employee retention and is often cited as a primary rationale for diminished job satisfaction (Goswami and Jha 2012). The development of mutual respect and building legitimate affection between organisational members serves as the foundation for trust (Starnes, Truhon and McCarthy 2010). Management teams that work collectively with employees, provide them a voice, work toward building job satisfaction, and building competencies that will ultimately lead to increased autonomy without direct managerial presence serve as a deontological ideology aligned with Kantian ethics that ensure employees retain and build their dignities. It would appear, based on the literature on the subject, that any system that erodes trust development would be denying the basic obligations to service the duty and obligation to treat others in a humane and respectful fashion. Milton Friedman, a respected business theorist, maintains a different perspective. This theorist believes that the only legitimate responsibility of an organisation is to increase profitability (Dunn 2010). Even modern corporate governance codes of conduct instruct organisations to develop governance policies that ensure shareholder wealth growth, without necessarily considering the role of other stakeholders (i.e. employees) that also require consideration in policy and strategy developments. This is why there is a strong disconnect between using strategies to build employee dignities and achievement of organisational goals. Policies in the UK that regulate Board governance and top management activity continue to assert that profitability objectives are the most primary and rational strategies to ensure organisational longevity and success. Governance regulations, as supported by government, do not lay out guidelines by which to ensure employee dignities are supported, only that the organisation is complying with maintaining honesty and support for shareholder needs. Government, therefore, is often instrumental in setting the foundation for putting organisational objectives over that of human dignity support and encouragement, which is vital under the Kantian view of ethical behaviours and deontological ideologies. Having been an employee of organisations that do not adhere to deontological views of dignity and the establishment of meaningful work, I have a unique perspective on this contemporary issue within an organisational context. When organisations attempt to place the organisational goals over that of the establishment of autonomy, respect, trust, skills development, a shared voice, and equal opportunities, it creates considerable conflict that strongly depletes productivity, collaboration and general workforce performance levels. The next section describes my personal experiences in a command and control organisation where managers did not prescribe to Kantian ethics and morality and reflectively discusses that impact of this decision-making ideology. Description and analysis of personal experiences As an employee in an organisation that regularly placed its objectives and goals ahead of ensuring employee dignity, conflict and non-productiveness were common outcomes of job role de-motivation. Managers of the organisation were highly autocratic, which was supported by top management who believed that compliance and conformity were the most appropriate methodology of leadership that attained productive outputs for the organisation. The autocratic leader maintains little consideration for employee needs and dignities, creating well-developed disciplinary processes for alleged or legitimate non-compliance and there is little interaction and consultation with subordinates (Goodnight 2004). The autocratic leader is often defensive and maintains very rigid thinking patterns, believing that close supervision and control systems are the most viable strategies for ensuring quantitative results for the organisation (Goodnight). The autocratic style of management does not conform to the Kantian perspective of fulfilling a duty of ensuring dignity and respect of employees. Nahapiet and Shoshal (1998) iterate the successful workplaces require the development of shared values and interpretations between colleagues and managers, which provides employees with a perception that they have been instrumental in making positive contributions to the organisation. In the organisation where I was employed, the management team was unable to create a cohesive and unified organisational culture that acted on these shared meanings and values, but instead created an environment of general de-motivation, lack of motivation to collaborate inter-professionally, and built potent animosities toward the management team. As a result, employees were regularly chastised for failing to meet specific quantitative targets that were aligned with strategic goals even though these failures were a direct result of managers overlooking their obligations to provide employees with dignity and the development of meaningful work. Again, the Kantian perspective is that all members of society have a stern obligation for treating others with genuine respect and goodwill, whilst also showing self-restraint. Oftentimes, employees would argue with managers that the environment was not providing opportunities for skills development, cross-functional training, and was generally eroding the sociological environment in the organisation. Managers, rather than attempting to address these concerns and show empathy for this emotional condition, were highly defensive for being challenged and would simply iterate that their job roles could be replaced. In fact, in one particular situation, an employee with considerable tenure publicly challenged the autocratic leader for providing perceived injustice in performance reviews. Members of this organisation had, however, established strong working relationships with peers and had built a sense of subordinate-level identity through group membership. The leader publicly challenged the rights of the employee to be vocal about this allegation and began to openly criticise their work competencies and job output quality. This individual, who had been respected by their in-group colleagues for being proficient in their job role, was utterly humiliated for challenging the managerial status quo and their dignity entirely damaged amongst his respected colleagues. This manager not only could not maintain restraint, but did not even for a moment consider that the obligation of society members is to be respectful and courteous to others as a form of general goodwill. For openly challenging the manager, the confronting employee was later targeted for micromanaging and was consistently reprimanded (written up) for very minor performance failures. This targeted and unjust approach to satisfying the manager’s ego and reputation was highly perceived by employees which not only eroded trust in the manager, but significantly de-motivated workers who were growing more and more frustrated about establishing any type of meaningful social belonging as valued contributors to the organisation. As a result of not adhering to deontological principles of ethical behaviours, inter-group irritability and belligerence became a significant problem for achieving organisational goals. Any effort to take these grievances to senior-level management for resolution were met with a reiteration that top management believed in the relevancy and appropriateness of sustaining power distance between managers and employees. Managers, therefore, were always supported in making autocratic and dehumanising communications regardless of its impact on retention levels and job role productivity outcomes. Top level management simply reiterated the importance of meeting quantitative targets related to established strategic and profitability goals and the development of a deontological system of leadership and ethics was impossible to coerce. Hence, lack of autonomous working opportunities, injustice in performance evaluation, lack of respect and having absolutely no voice in organisational matters stripped the organisation of productivity. Employees reached a point where they had grown so frustrated and angry over being controlled and disgraced in a social context that their service levels for customers became equally confrontational which ultimately led to lost customer segments and quarterly revenue reduction. This particular organisation did not see the relevancy and inter-linkage between deontological ideologies that establish dignity as a primary goal, leading to mistrust, poor performance, and inability to meet organisational goals effectively and within expected timelines. Managers showed no outward presentation of integrity and respect that are aligned with the Kantian view of ensuring dignity and meaningful work. As a result, as aligned with the literature, organisational productivity and performance were depleted. Inter-professional conflict pervaded the organisational environment, however these conflicts could have easily been resolved through managerial practice that adopted deontological principles of dignity and moral obligation. In my experiences with this organisation, I realised that placing the organisation’s goals ahead of ensuring human dignity in employee/leader engagements would ultimately lead to poor organisational success. Compliance and control systems that dehumanise employees and micromanage with no opportunities for autonomy were completely ineffective and the consequences for this decision-making were job role de-motivation and high intentions to leave the organisation in pursuit of employment elsewhere that provided more respect and recognition for organisational accomplishments and talents. My experiences with this autocratic leadership regime reminded me of the importance of placing human needs ahead of organisational needs if an organisation is to achieve long-term advantages and profitability. The old Scientific Management approach of command and control systems were ineffective during its time period and are still inappropriate in the contemporary workforce. Kantian ethics ensure that employee dignities be a fundamental focus and factor for concern for an organisation that desires to be competitive and productive, which is aligned with the plethora of perspectives described in the literature review in this analysis. This is why dignity is a significant issue in contemporary workplaces since the long-run consequences of failing to conform to deontological ideologies radically deconstruct productive behaviours and attitudes which leads to measurable failures in achieving organisational goals. My experiences have also illustrated that dignity is critical and necessary to achieve a positive and unified organisational culture. An organisation cannot establish cohesiveness and meet its strategic goals without contribution and motivation by employees with different talents and responsibilities. Failing to adhere to deontological ideology that emphasise human dignity and respect erodes the development of organisational culture which, in the long-term, seems to lead to high levels of disparity that is not appropriate for achieving organisational goals. Conclusion My personal experience in an organisation that did not adhere to the moral obligation of ensuring employee dignity in the workplace have assisted in understanding why Kantian ideologies in management are so critical for organisational performance. Though Kant has been criticised for not evaluating all aspects of social respect and goodwill, this foundational perspective that states dignity and mutual respect should be primary goals of managers is sound and supported by literature. Literature states that motivation can be depleted when deontological behaviours are not illustrated, shown that organisational commitment is reduced, and general lack of job satisfaction not achievable as a result of this failure. Dignity and meaningful work, therefore, is a justifiable concept when attempting to determine the impact of organisational performance and productivity and its relationship to satisfying basic human dignity expectations. This analysis provided considerable research support that illustrates ineffectiveness at the organisational level when systems, management and policies do not take into consideration the importance of adhering to Kantian perspectives on goodwill and mutual respect. There was a common theme in most literature in multiple domains of knowledge and practice that show an absolutely measurable negative correlation between organisational performance and failure to provide environments where employee dignity is supported and given empathic consideration. This analysis could have reviewed literature on human rights, such as those illustrated by organisations such as the United Nations, in order to determine how dignity plays a role in basic human decorum. The deontological viewpoint illustrates that it is a duty to adhere to goodwill and mutual respect establishment as fundamental human requirements. However, the concept of human rights is not universal and not necessarily applicable to different nations and cultures, therefore exploration of human rights and its relationship with deontological dignities could not be explored sufficiently due to the complexity of disparate social viewpoints on human rights. Examination of human rights models, however, could have provided a broader understanding of Kantian ethics and this ideology’s relevancy in guiding organisational management behaviours. The main findings of this analysis is that failure to recognise the importance of establishing meaningful workplaces and ensuring employee dignity is sustained leads to much more effective organisational performance. Placing the needs of the organisation ahead of human dignity is ineffective and leads to substantial conflict and lack of productivity. The concept of Kantian morality and ethics, therefore, is highly relevant and justified in an organisational context and managers who want to achieve productive results related to strategy must adhere to these principles and duties. My personal experiences, combined with literature on the subject, confirm this assertion and illustrate how organisations can undermine their own objectives by neglecting these obligations and duties for ensuring worker dignity and establishment of meaningful work. References Armstrong, M. (2007). Armstrong’s handbook of strategic human resource management, 5th edn. London: Kogan Page. Chaudhry, A.Q. & Javed, H. (2012). Impact of Transactional and Laissez-Faire Leadership on Motivation, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7). Cheung, F.M., Cheung, S.F., Zhang, J., Leung, K., Leong, F. and Yeh, K.H. (2008). Relevance for openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(1), pp. 81–108. Cody, W.J.M. and Lynn, R. R. (1992). Honest government: an ethics guide for public service. Westport: Praeger. Dunn, C.P. (2010). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. [online] Available at: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/dunnweb/rprnts.friedman.dunn.pdf (accessed 2 April 2014). Eisenbach, R., Watson, K. and Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational Leadership in the Context of Organizational Change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), pp. 80-88. Farrell, H., and Knight, J. (2003). Trust, institutions, and institutional change: Industrial districts and the social capital hypothesis, Politics & Society, 31(4), pp. 537-566. Goodnight, R. (2004). Encyclopedia of Leadership. Sage Publications. Goswami, B.K. and Jha, S. (2012). Attrition Issues and Retention Challenges of Employees, International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 3(4). Hodson, R. and Roscigno, V.J. (2004). Organisational success and worker dignity: complementary or contradictory?, American Journal of Sociology, 110(3), pp.672-708. Kotter, J.P. (2001). Breakthrough Leadership, Harvard Business Review, December. Mack, E. (1998). Deontic restrictions are not agent-relative restrictions, Social Philosophy & Policy, 15. Mullins, L.J. (2004). Management and organisational behaviour, 7th edn. Financial Times: Prentice Hall. Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage, Academy of Management Review, 23, pp.242-266. Olson, R.G. (1967). Deontological ethics, in P. Edwards (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Collier Macmillan. Starnes, B., Truhon, S. and McCarthy, V. (2010). A primer on organizational trust, ASQ Human Development and Leadership. [online] Available at: http://rube.asq.org/hdl/2010/06/a-primer-on-organizational-trust.pdf (accessed 1 April 2014). Read More