Human Resource Management in Australia - Literature review Example

Justice, or injustice, is almost tantamount to cleavage. It is a critical consideration in all facets of life, especially in the governance circles. Justice was created because of lack of it, which was engendered by the rift between the rich and the poor and the men and women. This issue in the business management arena is broken down by Kramar, Bartram & De Cieri (2011) in their work regarding human resource management. This essay will discuss the issue of justice and how it affects the business organization and the human person with regard to the age old human resource management front. It will also analyze the principles that inform the two theoretical issues: human resource management and ethics, juxtaposing them with justice. Many a scholar has tried to explain the relationship between these two. Chief among these two theories are the Kantian Ethics, Consequentalism, Virtue Ethics and Justice Ethics. All these, considering their practical dimension, boil down to fairness. Rawls (1971) in his work concerning social justice posits that distributive justice concerns what is fairly acceptable in terms of allocation of resources and goods like wages in a society. He argues through two propositions of principle of equal liberty that discusses the rights of individuals in a society to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties and the difference principle which is about resources trickling down to the least advantaged in the society. It should also be understood that justice and ethics go hand in hand; for justice to reign, ethics must be observed. Ethics, according to Klikauer (2010), are the principal concepts and fundamental principles of right human conduct. When extended to the business arena, where human resource management is mainstay, it translates to the well being of all those involved in the business undertaking. In his work, Rawls (1971) argues that nobody has the advantage over the other and he uses the two principles of the original position and the notion of the veil of ignorance to claim that nobody in the world knows their position. Therefore, everybody struggles to find their footing in the society, not necessarily comparing themselves to each other. Justice, here, therefore boils down to the ethics concept that is about observing the right and wrong in society and trying to do the right thing in every undertaking, even in the human resource management scene. The second bit of the principles, the one that deals with equitable distribution of resources, regardless of the individual, is the main concern in this discussion. He pegs this principle to the acquisition of knowledge and skills that is brought about by economic barriers. In addition, he says that the economic barriers are the only impediments to other people’s contribution to the economic status of a society. He therefore advocates for fairness by all means. However, this proposition by Rawls does not sit easy with critics like Chopitany (1973, p. 147), who rightly identify flaws like lack of gender sensitivity and inclusiveness in the racial and ethnicity circles. These issues have to be included in the theory for it to address the concept of fairness that says that to treat everyone with equality qualifies to be ethical in any undertaking. This paper will explore this issue of ethics in the subtlest analysis by paying attention to these criticisms in addition to the foundations that govern the Rawl’s Distributive Justice Theory. The ethical concept in relation to the government of a firm’s human resources is to be examined in this paper. According to Greenwood (2002), human resource management is a business function that involves the management of the relations between groups of individuals in their capacity as employees, employers and managers. These relationships are based on the mutual benefit of all. These relations raise ethical issues on how to deal with each other in the firms. The chief objective of human resource management in a firm is to serve the interests of the firm with regard to the service it gets from its employees and the welfare of the employees themselves. This issue is tackled by Winstanley and Woodall (1996) where they say that the relationship between employers, employees and managers. The concern of this paper, to examine whether human resource management is ethical, can be looked at from different perspectives and it has its positive and negative sides. Owing to the main objective of the firm in relation to maximizing production, they would treat the workers and employees with the utmost care and support so as to motivate them to work towards fulfilling the goals of the firm. The Aristotelian point of argument that the right thing to do depends on the motive applies here. Klikauer (2010) says, with regard to the thought that if one does something that is meant to benefit them and not the other party, that is not taken to be just or right, a fact that Rawls (1971) says is essential to realize the goals of distributive justice. Motivational efforts meant to increase production of a firm, however beneficial they may be to the employees do not qualify to be fair in any way because they are not genuinely geared towards the employees. This fact is also talked about by Jeffrey (2002) who supports the Aristotelian theory of genuine ethics. From another perspective, whose proponents are scholars like Choptiany (1977), one can argue that because the firm managers also work towards promoting the well being of the employees, as much as they try to achieve the goals of the firm. This argument is supported by other scholars like Okin (1989) who gives it yet another twist, the twist of gender. He talks about how males and females are regarded in the work situation. He cites patriarchal society whereby the females are treated as lesser persons than the males. In this case, men are said to be favored not because they benefit the firm but because that is the orientation of the society. Males expect bette treatment from managers and that, they are done for their own good. That, to the men, paying attention to the orientation of the society, is the fair treatment to them. However, to the women, it is not fair treatment. The same scholar tries to argue that the men too do not get that treatment when it comes to the leave affairs. In societies rooted upon the principle of the males as the leaders, men get the blow when it comes to leave. Except areas that have legislated paternal leave, other countries that are not sensitive to this only have maternal leave. The human resource managers tend to allow the female workers to go on leave as opposed to their male counterparts regardless of the status of the males. This, also is not done because of the interests of individuals but because the society requires them to do so. This, according to James (2003), is supported by the fact that if the women are willing to work during the leave, they can be allowed to do so. The financial drive also comes in here. This does not fulfill the principle of distributive justice as talked about by Rawls (1971) because the pay is also varied depending on the status and way the employees operate. When the firm wants to take austerity measures, the lower scale employees get laid off as opposed to top management that might hold on to the job regardless of their contribution to the firm. The human resource managers are charged with the responsibility of the checking the human resources in the firm. According to John & Shaw (1991), when the firms do not have enough resources to remunerate their workers, they resort to do away with some allegedly redundant workers so as to fulfill the firm’s objectives. From this perspective, Charles (1986) argues that these measures are not meant to safeguard the welfare of the employees but of the firm. Because of this, Rawls (1971) would say that it does not qualify to be just to the employees. A counter argument comes in here because if it is fair to the employers, then it at least fits the part of humanity. So does it mean that if it works well with the managers and the employers it is well with the employees? In any normal business undertaking, the human resources managers have to choose the best decision for such a situation. Any decision made affects one party. No firm can decide to retain their workers, while the firm’s position is at stake. However, looking at this, the workers cannot be retained whilst the pay is maintained. It might be treated as justice because the firm cannot get enough to pay. Another twist to this is that the firm can use previous profits to maintain the workers until it regains. It is all in the decision of the human resource managers and because the mostly taken road is sacking, it is an injustice to the employees therefore unethical. To the employers, it might also be detrimental because in the long term, they may be forced to hire new employees and that may be expensive to the firm. Does this, therefore qualify to be ethical? Another dimension about ethics is built by Kelly (1990) where he talks about the process of hiring the employees. Some employers, through their hr agencies employ a competitive process of hiring their workers based on their expectations in pay. Firms, especially banks, prefer to employ graduates who are not necessarily cut out for banking. For instance, they can hire trained teachers and organize intensive training on basic banking skills and employ them in the bank. This qualifies to be a disservice to the trained bankers because they cannot secure employment. They resort to self employment. Because the hired people cannot claim to have skills in banking, they get paid on a scale that they trained for, leading to exploitation. This is unethical because the firms seek to minimize cost while maximizing profits. The most unjust thing therefore is denying the qualified people a chance to get employment. On the side of the firm, in the long run, they might experience a problem when the employees realize that they are being exploited and run away from their employment. This makes the firms seek the workers that it needs to ensure that the firm makes do with the resources available. This overstretches the ability of the firm and makes it lose. The human resource management therefore is unethical from all these perspectives. When it comes to improving the working experience of the workers, the firm might go into ensuring they organize training forums for their employees. The HRM of the firms organizes for this with the sole objective of improving the production of the firm. These may be done annually and it involves increased expenditure in the side of the employer. The expenditure comes because they sometimes need to pay for the studies. Another thing that they suffer from is the increase in the pay of workers because they have to improve the scale. The result is increased efficiency in production that may not come automatically. Sometimes firms employ coercive measures and even threats of sacking for them to ensure there is efficiency in the production. Marx 1875 [1993] says that the fundamental justice is plundered because the workers may comply due to their need to keep their jobs. Freedom is therefore undermined. The workers who improve their studies get an increase in pay while those that do not remain in that position. Some of these outcomes might be involuntary and this leads to unfairness in the distributive justice talked about by Rawls (1971). Looking at the possibility of these differences in scale of pay and promotions that happen within the firm, rifts develop. There is discrimination between the higher paid and their lower paid counterparts. These cleavages are sometimes not genuine and they are coordinated by the HRM in the firm. If it happens so often, it might lead to killing of morale in the other workers and the firm suffers. The fact that there is a difference in pay and allowances in it is unfair and does not work within the confines of distributive pay. It therefore is unjust. This usually happens when workers in the same level are not able to get the same pay because of their working in various departments. They have similar qualifications but are remunerated differently. When one is promoted, they also move to a different social class and their interaction with some groups becomes minimal. When firms, through their HRM, allow their employees to go for study leaves, most of them are individual funded and that means that the people endowed with resources to pay for the further studies can go and improve their studies, leaving the others behind. This ensures that the gap between the haves and have-nots keeps growing far apart. The status quo is maintained and resources are not distributed equitably. When they have resumed after study, they might be able to perform more tasks and this means that they can earn more and can even facilitate redundancy, thus trimming of the firm’s workers. This is not fair at all to other workers since it renders them jobless. James (2003) talks about this and says that the HRM is not ethical at all. They should make a more comprehensive consideration that allows the downtrodden to get a chance to further their studies. However, he is quick to add that it does not always happen this way because some firms give scholarships to some of their employees. Through this, he argues that HRM is not inherently unethical. Talent, a very important element in the working environment might be stifled. Some workers are very well known for their contribution in the production circles because of their input in terms of their talent. Some companies tend to opt for retaining the workers and not exposing them to worthy challenges that can keep improving their talents. Greenwood (2002) argues that such workers do not have to work within the firm all the time. For slow talented workers, they may be retained in the firm for so long that they cannot expound their skill. Some firms, through their HRM, employ very crude measures of acknowledging intellectual property in general. For instance, if an employee has discovered something, the terms of service are designed in a way that they owe the company all the rights because it is within their firm that the idea(s) sprout. This denies the person the chance to explore into depths the possibilities within the idea. Some firms might even decide to ensure that they use the idea for their maximum benefit, not rightfully acknowledging the owner of the idea. Some recruitment, done by HRM, is not open and competitive. People just apply and are shortlisted for interview. This is usually possible in private companies. This practice exposes the other unfortunate applicants to unequal opportunity. Eventually what happens, the whole process is flawed and as Charles (1986) would say, the most affected are the ones who cannot work their way in. Because of this; the people who deserve to get the jobs do not get them. The final thing, he says, is that the production efficiency is highly compromised, low quality output and therefore low competition because of the goods produced. This is unfair, not only to the company because of the loss of market grasp but also to consumers because they settle for low quality. All these issues spring from the flaws in the HRM that in this respect seems to be unethical. In pursuit of cheap labor, HRM sometimes goes to the extremes of hiring underage workers and therefore child abuse. This practice is very common in developing countries, especially where legislation against children’s rights violation is not very strong. Education, a source of knowledge and skills, is in turn compromised. This leads to inadequacies in the way the labor force of a country works. Low production is what results from this. This is still a disservice to the community, tackled in the first principle in justice as fairness in the work of Rawls (1971). This in itself is unethical in the side of the employer and thus unacceptable. Some companies also, in their quest to increase production while keeping expenses low, Kramar, Bartram & De Cieri (2011) say that they increase the working hours. This may be hazardous to the workers because stress comes up and other diseases develop within the workforce. In order to keep the workers within the company, the firm’s HRM, offer attractive perks and the workers fall prey because they need the money to improve their lives. This qualifies to be taking advantage of the workers thus unethical. However, all these undoing that come because of HRM do not prevent HRM from doing their core business that is to ensure they balance the benefit of the firm, paying attention to the needs of the employees (Kramar, Bartram, & De Cieri 2011). These scholars say that the HRM does its work of hiring workers for the firms. The advertisement put about vacant positions enable the public to know the opportunities that they have and apply for these jobs. The fairest thing about this is that they can get information on a level playground and avoid discrimination that can happen if the applications were to be done secretly. This allows for fairness and therefore qualifies HRM, in that respect as ethical. Another thing that makes HRM ethical is the fact that it is a department in the firm charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the workers get the best of skills. They therefore organize trainings for the workers. In these training sessions, the employees interact and are able to grow in all aspects. Their talents may also sprout during these and people get to rediscover themselves and go towards the direction of their vocation. This is fair treatment because the people diversify in these respects and are allowed to grow. This is what Rawls (1971) talks about in the conversations on ethics and HRM. These programs by the organizations also make it easier for workers to identify with the company and thus, fostering the self esteem of the employee. This consequently improves organizational productivity. Some HRM programs are also tailored to award scholarships and sponsorships to the beneficiaries of the workers. This boosts academic growth in an economy and through this research can be encouraged. This is something ethical that comes from the HRM table and should not be taken for granted. The HRM also provides a level playground for all people through the centrality of how things are conducted. In conclusion, basing the argument on the Aristotelian thought, the ethics in business depends on the motives fronted by the individual. It should be as deliberate as possible and should be out of volition of the two parties. Looking at the distributive justice that Rawls (1971) talks about, justice or fairness is a complex notion that requires common ground for the action to be weighed against a balanced scale. Otherwise, the judgment might be flawed. Charles (1986) also posits that because the main aim of a business undertaking is to provide a platform for profit making, it might not necessarily consider the well being of the workers and if it does, it is because it wants to gain out of the process. This therefore brings the point of using the human resource as instruments of enrichment that is unethical. In that perspective, then, HRM is unethical. List of References Charles, T 1986, “The nature and scope of distributive justice”, in Justice and Equality Here and Now, Frank S. Lucash, ed., Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 34-67 Choptiany, L 1973, “A Critique on John Rawls’s Principles of justice.” Ethics 83:146-150. Greenwood, MR (2002). Ethics and HRM: are view and conceptual analysis, Journal of Business Ethics, 3(3), pp. 261–278. James, K 2003, “Which Is the Fairest One of All?: A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories,” Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), pp. 1188-1239. Jeffrey, M 2002, “Desert and distributive justice in a theory of justice”, Journal of Social Philosophy, 33(1), pp. 131-143. John, A. & Shaw, W (eds.), 1991, Justice and Economic Distribution 2nd Ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Marx, K 1875 [1993]. "Critique of the Gotha Programme." In Justice, edited by Alan Ryan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 159-63. Kelly, PJ 1990, Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Klikauer, T 2010, Critical Management Ethics, Basingstoke (UK): Palgrave. Kramar, R., Bartram, T. & De Cieri, H 2011, Human Resource Management in Australia- Strategy, People, and Performance (4th ed.), Sydney: McGraw-Hill (chapters 1 and 5). Okin, SM 1989, Justice, Gender and the Family. New York: Basic Books. Rawls, J. 1971, A Theory of Justice. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press. Winstanley, D. & Woodall, J 1996, Business ethics and human resource Management, Personnel Review 25(6), pp. 5–12. Read More