HRM Contribution to Organizations and Society - Essay Example

HRM Contribution to Organizations and Society: HRM and Ethics Human Resource Management, also abbreviated as HRM, can simply be defined as the management of human resource (Deckop and Deckop, 2006). Human resource is simply the employees, recruits or any workforce of any business, company or association, large or small. HRM is not only done specifically by human resource managers, but even other managers in an organization do it every occasionally, knowingly or unknowingly (Simmons-Welburn and McNeil, 2004). This is therefore a topic relevant to every person in any organization who has any employees “under” or reporting to them. Many issues are addressed under HRM, and the most common ones include recruitment, compensation issues, occupational health and safety, training, incentives, promotions, demotions and sacking, development, organization of the workforce and general welfare of the employees. HRM managers generally coordinate the employees with the organization and the working environment (Koster 2007). In the process of trying to reach its goals, an organization may get to a point where it is “dead” as far as the employee’s needs are concerned. No wonder, the HRM is the section within an organization that is expected to be the sensitive and “feeling” section in an organization. This is where the issue of ethics in HRM comes in. it is the HRM that recruits a handful from thousands of applicants, promotes or adds the salaries of a handful of employees and leave out a huge percentage of others. It is the HRM that lays off some and leaves in others, the same designs performance contracts and gives good performance reviews to one and bad ones to another. The HRM, in other words, is a very sensitive part of any organization, and it is the part of an organization that is faced with the most ethical issues than any other department (Sims 2007). Ethics in HRM are not only meant to benefit the employees but the organization as well. This is because poor standards in the ethics of any HRM may have detrimental effects on the organization in the end. Failing to observe high ethical standards may seem to help the organization benefit by making it possible to achieve short-term goals, but this pleasure never lasts through the long-term goals. In addition, trade is made easier, more effective and more enjoyable when it is done in a good internal and external environment (Simmons-Welburn and McNeil, 2004). This means that internally, the organization should be healthy by ensuring that the employees and management are well catered for, and an external healthy environment means that the organization should participate in ensuring that poverty, insecurity, underdevelopment, et cetera are reduced or finished by participating in nation building. This can only be done when the organization has transparency in its dealings (Durai 2010). There are many theoreticians who have had interest in the area of HRM and Ethics, and they have different theories and versions on ethics in human resource management. These include the views under the Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics, Justice Ethics and, finally yet importantly, the Consequentalism or Utilitarianism view. The consequentalism view is based on the theoretician Bentham, and the Utilitarianism view is based on the views of Stewart Mills (Cornelius 2001). However, this essay will focus on the Kantian Ethics. According to Kant, ethics are not limited to how you treat others, but also how you treat the person in you (Davila and Elvira, 2008). According to this theoretician, treating a person should not be viewed as a process through which a certain end will be reached. Rather, the action done should be seen as the result – not as a process of getting to the end. HRM should be ethical, but it most of the times is found to be very unethical. This is merely a hypothesis, and there is no solid evidence to show that HRM is unethical and to which extent it is unethical (Durai 2010). This essay is going to critically discuss the statement: HRM is unethical because “HRM treats people as a means, a tool, an instrument, a device, a resource and not as a human being and a person ‘in-itself’” – Kant. First of all, it should be made clear that HRM being ethical does not only mean treating people well and kindly; it also entails treating others harshly and “mercilessly,” as long as these people deserve it (Jackson and Mathis, 2007). This means that HRM can be as ethical firing an accountant when he is unfaithful in accounting as when promoting an accountant due to good performance (Simmons-Welburn and McNeil, 2004). However, it is the notion in business that combining ethics and business often results to low or no profits (Parker 1998). As a result, most organizations prefer to hurt the minority while stepping up the ladder of success for the benefit of the majority. The majority, in this case, is not in terms of numbers but strength. Anything can be done, as long as it will bring in revenue and help the organization achieve its best. This is the principle applied in a situation where an institution does not want to ruin its reputation by dismissing a manager or senior employee who has sexually harassed another employee (Simmons-Welburn and McNeil, 2004). Therefore, the institution may bribe or “silence” (by firing) the employee reporting the matter. Ethics, in such an institution, do not matter, and the name and gain of the institution is preserved at the expense of the dignity, right and life of another individual (Koster 2007). Most organizations do not even want the employees to know their rights in the workplace, and they therefore do not make the employees aware of the ethics of the organization (Simmons-Welburn and McNeil, 2004). Every organization should inform and train the employees on the ethics that the organization has so that the employees should expect to see these ethical standards being kept. In addition, most HRMs will fail to see its employee as a person but rather as a moneymaking machine. Because of this, the HRM will try as much as possible to separate the employee from his personal obligations and only concentrate on the employee as a worker. This explains why getting a sick leave in most organizations is almost impossible. It gets to a point where the employee is made to choose between their health and their job. It is impossible to separate a human being’s different areas in life and treat them as separate entities. Every human being has a social life, emotional life health, mental life, intellectual life, spiritual life et cetera, and all these need to work together for the total well being of the person. It is therefore unethical when the HRM chooses to only extract as much as they can from the employee while trying to ignore any other part of being in this employee (Sims 2007). Most HRM think that by doing what is legally right, they are being fully ethical. However, being legally right is not enough; moral uprightness is needed to make the picture complete. You will find HRM which is very committed to the duty of deducting money from the employee’s pay check for various government schemes like retirements benefit scheme, the national insurance health schemes, social security funds schemes, et cetera (Cornelius 2001). However, it is a common thing to know that this money is not taken to these schemes, but the HRM people and any other involved people use this money for their own benefits (Simmons-Welburn and McNeil, 2004). It becomes a rude shock to the employee when they need help to settle their medical bills only for the national health insurance to tell them that they have not been paying their monthly premiums. Other employees retire only to go to the retirement benefits authority to claim their pension and be told that they have nothing to collect because they did not save anything in the social security funds (Storey 2007). It is impossible to observe high ethical standards without having certain values. It is known that there are three levels of values - primary, secondary and peripheral. However, most HRM will dwell on mainly the peripheral values and, occasionally, secondary ones. The peripherals are those well known to them (theoretically) but they are not kept at all. The secondary ones are those that are also well known, but are compromised on in most occasions. Primary core values are those that do not change and keeping them is necessary. As a result, the HRM unknowingly causes a development of bad attitudes and behaviour in the work place and the organization. It therefore becomes a vicious cycle in which there is a constant desire and temptation to do evil (Parker 1998). In most organizations, employees are not allowed to fully participate in decision-making (Pinnington, Macklin and Campbell, 2007). They are treated as subjects who wait for the greater ones to make decisions and pass them down to the subjects. This is because employees are seen as merely tools and means by which profits can be attained and means by which a name can be made, and not as people (Pinnington, Macklin and Campbell, 2007). Accounting reports are also hidden from them, and employees are not able to know how much the company has gained from their efforts or ideas. This is done so that they will not claim for incentives, better pay, or even promotion. Organizations want to pay the employees the same amount of money for work that is a hundred times more. The HRM and other managers become too proud to a point where they do not want the employees to take the glory out of any milestone the organization achieves, hence the reason why financial and sales reports are kept away from employees (Koster 2007). When the environment the HRM creates in the organization is unethical and unsuitable, employees start becoming demoralized. They no longer care about the organization’s welfare, and they start doing things for the sake of doing them - without passion. They start obeying orders and doing nothing extra, and others become deliberately rebellious. The organization starts losing employees who are very useful to the organization, and downfall begins. In addition, there is this belief that “you attract what you are,” and therefore the organization starts attracting employees who are also unethical into it. When this happens, the company or organization suddenly starts losing clients, suppliers, and trust in the market, and this marks the beginning of its downfall (Cornelius 2001). However, this is not to say that all the HRMs are unethical. It may be hard to believe it, but there are those that are almost perfect as far as ethical and moral practices are concerned. They have a well organized ethical system, which is seen in the policies they have made. These policies are faithfully enforced, regardless of who is going to get hurt or who is going to benefit. Those who break the policies are punished accordingly, and those who uphold them are rewarded without fail. This type of HRM is very careful when doing recruiting not to recruit employees who are not ethical and morally upright. It is not hard to spot such a HRM in an organization, because it is careful enough to even have a sub-section under the main HR section, which is set apart to oversee and to govern ethics in the organization (Parker 1998). Such HRM are not afraid to ask questions they are not comfortable. For instance, an upright HRM will seek to know whether they deserve the compensation they get or whether they are getting more that they have worked for. Such HRMs are careful to have policies governing discrimination of any kind. Occupational health and safety is also important to them (Simmons-Welburn and McNeil, 2004). They ensure that protective gear is fully and indefinitely availed to the employees and that the working environment is safe to be in. the overall well being of the employee is their first priority, and this HRM almost becomes what the trade unions are to the employees; an advocate for them (Storey 2007). In addition, such HRM ensure that relationships between different employees are conducive. As a result, the workers of the organization carry themselves as one happy family, and their interest in each other goes beyond the workplace. The social, mental, physical, emotional and intellectual well being of every employee becomes a major concern. As a result, employees find the organization a wonderful place to work in, and this results to increased productivity because the employees will not only do their best, but they will give more that they are being paid for (Koster 2007). Every time annual financial reports are out, the employees are fully involved in going through them. Every improvement in the returns is seen because of the employees’ efforts, and any specific employees whose ideas are seen to be the min cause for this improvement are rewarded handsomely. Such HRM ensure that the organization fully involves the employees in everything about the company: good or bad (Simmons-Welburn and McNeil, 2004). Therefore, even when the organization has made losses, the employees are also involved, and it saddens them that the organization did not make profits. As a result, everything these employees do for the next financial year is to see to it that the next annual reports will indicate a major positive improvement. In other words, the organization’s well being becomes the employees’ major concern (Cornelius 2001). Ethical HRM is deliberate on their ethical action, and these actions do not happen by accident. They treat the employees the same way they would want to be treated if they were in their shoes. Every contract and policy they make is to ensure that the employees find an environment that ensures maximum potential and maximum welfare. Employees are also given the opportunity to learn more and nurture their talents and abilities so that they can become better people. This shows that the HRM is not afraid to empower the employees so that they will not resign from the organization and go start their own. The employees are thus valued as people and not merely as tools of trade. They are allowed to learn more and develop more by the organization organizing training sessions for the employees (Sims 2007). Some HRM work according to Kantian ethics, and every action done on the employees is not seen as a means to get the result, but the actions are seen as the results themselves. For instance, such a HRM will not lie to the employees in any way, even when they believe that lying to them in that way will work for the employees’ good. This is because according too Kant, lying to a person and making them follow you without knowing that you have lied is total disrespect for their independence and pride (Storey 2007). In addition, such HRM do not use employees in a wrong way (Pinnington, Macklin and Campbell, 2007). For instance, using the tea girl or office cleaner to have your office cleaned up is not wrong, because both parties are willing according to the contract between them (Pinnington, Macklin and Campbell, 2007). However, using the same person to clean your vomit from the office floor or to clean your car because you are “the boss” is utterly wrong, because it is not part of the agreement, and this means that one party is not fully willing. These amounts to unethical practices and good HRM managers do not do this. Forcing a person to do something for your good (or even theirs) is unethical (Durai 2010). The main issue here is not whether HRM is ethical or not. The question is can HRM be ethical? Is it possible for an organization to be ethical and still make maximum profits? There are many organizations that are known for the high ethical standards they maintain, yet these organizations produce good results. The workforce of any organization is a very basic part of the organization, and the HRM cannot afford to mishandle this workforce. With enough and consistent practice, any HRM can learn to be ethical and to observe high standards of ethics in the organization (Storey 2007). It is possible for HRM to rise above the temptation to make money off the employees and start seeing them for the people they really are. The major step that needs to be taken for this to happen is the drafting of a manual of the ethical policies of the organization and to be determined to keep each of these policies, one at a time. Focus should be shifted from immediate gratification of the short term goals of the organization, and this focus should be on the organization’s long term benefits of being ethical. Employees can make or break an organization, and it all depends on the treatment they get (Koster 2007). References Cornelius, N. 2001. Human Resource Management: a managerial perspective. London: MacMillan Publishers. Davila, A., and Elvira, M. 2008. Best human resource management practices in Latin America. London: Taylor & Francis Deckop, J., and Deckop, R. 2006. Human resource management ethics. London: IAP Durai. 2010. Human Resource Management. New Delhi: Pearson Education India. Jackson, J., and Mathis, R. 2007. Human resource management. London: Cengage Learning Koster, M. 2007. Ethics in Human Resource Management. Germany: GRIN Verlag. Parker, M. 1998. Ethics and organizations. New York: SAGE Publishers. Pinnington, A., Macklin, R., and Campbell, T. 2007. Human resource management: ethics and employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Simmons-Welburn, J., and McNeil, B. 2004. Human resource management in today's academic library: meeting challenges and creating opportunities. London: Libraries Unlimited. Sims, R.R. 2007. Human resource management: Contemporary issues, challenges and opportunities. North Carolina: IAP. Storey, J. 2007. Human resource management: A critical text. New York: Cengage Learning. Read More