Aristotles Virtue Ethics Theory - Coursework Example

Critical discussion of Aristotle’s Virtue ethics theory and the statement that “HRM is unethical because HRM is not interested in ‘well-being’, ‘happiness’, ‘blessedness’, and ‘human flourishing’. Instead, it prevents this. There is no term such as organizational happiness. While virtue ethics focuses on moral character, character building is not part of HRM’s Learning and development” Introduction According to Hursthouse (1999), there are diverse approaches to HRM. This paper is interested in critically analysing Virtue ethics. It argues whether virtue ethics is embraced in HRM practice or not and finally makes conclusion based on the arguments developed. The virtues one need to cultivate was contributed much by Aristotle. Aristotle was able to specify what virtues were and was mistakenly taken as virtues during his time as stated by Bessant (2009). He used the idea of golden mean to describe virtues. This was similar to Buddha’s middle path between self-indulgence and self-renunciation. However, Aristotle did not apply the golden rule in all virtues because some virtues such as temperance or self-restraint one can easily find the excess of self-indulgence in the physical pleasures but the opposite of this is not in existence (Hursthouse, 1999). Thus, the caution implies that one can only arrive at the mean if he/she already has a notion as to what is excess and what a defect of the trait in question is. It is suggested by Christie, Groarke, and Sweet, (2008) that Aristotle was interested identification of qualities of good people rather than identification of good principles or acts. According to Aristotle, a virtuous man knows what he does is virtuous while a good man judges prior to doing the right thing in the right place at the right time in the right way (Pellegrino, 1995). It is argued that virtues include both character and intellectual virtues (Neubert et al. 2009). Because of this, the effectiveness of an ethical system is dependent on the nature of the people who employs it. Employee well-being HRM is charged with the responsibility of ensuring employees are committed to and are involved in the objectives and goals of a firm (Caldwell, Hayes, Bernal and Karri, 2008). It is the principles of the HRM that influence how a firm is managed. In recent past, many HRM departments have become interested in the notion of best practice HRM that is referred to as high performance work systems, high involvement or high commitment (Bessant, 2009). As such, HRM managers are interested in development of workforce that is qualified and committed to the strategy and objectives of the firm in an environment characterized by trust and comradeship (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). An increasing interest has been directed toward employee well being in recent past. The globalization of business environment has come with an increased burden for the employees to deliver products and services (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). As such, this pressure has had a negative effect on the health and well-being of employees. Consequently, cost of business is on the rise while the employee pay is diminishing (Hursthouse, 1999). Employees are increasingly encountering employment related stress that is contributing significantly to absenteeism at workplace. In addition, aged employees are forced to work for long in order to fund their pensions and retirements. This is also affecting negatively the well-being of employees. many firms have embraced technology in recent past and as a result changes in firms is an going activity and workers are required to respond first to these changes (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). Many work, family and life satisfaction balance related problems have been created by dual earning families. Previously, has stated by Hursthouse (1999), employee well-being concentrated on absenteeism and accidental injury. According to Pellegrino (1995), today employee well-being requires a broader view of being healthier and happier and more productive workplace. Studies indicate that with such conditions in place, employees are capable of making optimum contribution to their firms while enjoying a safer, more satisfying and healthier working life. Innovative companies have embraced the vision of health, work and well-being and as such are benefiting greatly from this (Bessant, 2009). Studies have also indicated that many HRM departments in many companies are increasingly adopting employee well-being principles (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). These studies further notes that employers are increasingly recognizing the benefits and contribution of employee well-being via introduction of workplace health and wellness policies (Cornelius et al., 2008). Firms are using good employment practices, rehabilitation strategies and effective return to work strategies in addition to supporting employee well-being in order to tackle issues of employees’ ill health (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). Some authors have thus argued that psychological contracts, which dominated employment relations between employers and employees, have changed (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). This is because it has been found out those previous perceptions of short-term focus, personal agendas and unethical leadership behaviour contributed greatly to cynicism in the workplace (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). Such cynicism negatively affected the performance of employees and the firm at large since it affected the well-being of employees (Bessant, 2009). In order to tackle these perceptions management has been required to trust and respect employees and communicate this to all individuals the firm in an honest and committed manner (Pellegrino, 1995). The benefits of employee wellbeing have forced many firms to strive to ensure that their employees are in a good state of health to ensure the business is in a healthy state (Pellegrino, 1995). Several factors have been cited to be essential for employee wellbeing. They include open communication, flexibility, team working and cooperation, support and balance between personal life and work life (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). From the above discussion, it is apparent that HRM systems in many firms are increasingly embracing employee well being as a necessity from improved employee and organization performance (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). It is thus apparent that many HRM departments are acting ethically based on employee wellbeing. This contrary to the statement that HRM act unethically because they are not interested in employee well being. Employee happiness Employee happiness is based on the level of satisfaction of employees at workplace. The level of satisfaction of employees determines the level to which employees are happy and contented in addition to fulfilling their needs and desires at workplace (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). HRM professional have conflicting viewpoints on whether happy employees are productive or not (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). Early research on job satisfaction and job performance indicated that there was a negative relationship. However, recent studies contradict the view that the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is trivial (Hursthouse, 1999). In addition, recent studies have indicated that the relationship is stronger for complex jobs as opposed to less complex jobs. Studies have further indicated that dissatisfied employees are more likely to quit their jobs or be absent that satisfied employees (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). This implies that firms in which many employees are dissatisfied have a higher employee turnover as compared to firms where many employees are satisfied (Pellegrino, 1995). Job satisfaction is not only linked to compensation schemes for employees but also to sense of control over their lives (Pellegrino, 1995). This can be attained by HR professionals giving employees more control over their environment, schedules and work habits. By doing so, the employer helps employees to strike a work-life balance that makes them happy. In spite the findings of these studies, there are little if any efforts by HRM departments to ensure that employees are satisfied. Few if any HR professionals help their employees to have a control over their lives. They are mainly interested in the performance of the firm (Bessant, 2009). It is widely accepted that HR departments are not designed to provide corporate therapy or as health or social happiness retreat. Many HR professionals argue that HR practitioners ought to create the practice that makes employees more competitive instead of making them more comfortable. It is the responsibility of HR practitioners to link HR strategy and business strategy (Hursthouse, 1999). As such, they are involved in striking a balance between decisions on the employee and the firm’s decisions. HR professionals who fail to highlight the impact of decisions on employees, which is often overlooked, may contribute to firm’s failure in performance (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). Although, this is what is supposed to happen, most HR practitioners put the interests of the firm first instead of striking a balance between employee interests and the firm’s interest (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). Thus, in this view, HRM professionals act unethically because they are not interested in the happiness of employees. Employee blessedness It is said that a person who has found work is blessed and as such, he/she should not ask for other blessings. It is believed that its work which changes the nation, the society and the individual. This is because work influences the lifestyle of a person greatly (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). The success or failure of a man in the society is thus linked work. By working one can become autonomous, a provider, be successful in life and to establish self-worth or self-respect. Quality of life led by an individual is thus related to employee blessedness. This is in turn related to work culture of an organization. Thus, improving the work culture of a firm ultimately improves quality of life of an employee (Hursthouse, 1999). However, many employees view quality of life as a fad aimed at pacifying the demands of impatient employees (Caldwell et al., 2011). They believe that quality of life of employees can offer new challenges even though it brings with it opportunities for growth and satisfaction of employees. Quality of work life entails economic rewards and benefits, working conditions, security, organizational and interpersonal relationships which impact on employees’ quality of life (Bessant, 2009). The quality of work life is gaining much importance due to growing awareness among employees of their rights and growing unionism. However, management of many firms has not come to a common understanding with their employees and hence they are engaged in constant struggle for their own end (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). Thus, the employee is just seen as a factor production by the employer. The employers try as much as possible to maximize the output of employees without providing the comforts and facilities anticipated by the employees (Pellegrino, 1995). Based on this employee blessedness is not attained. Thus, it is true in this perspective that HRM act unethically because they are not interested in the blessedness of their employees. Employee prosperity Employees are often willing to work hard if they are prospering in their own personal life. An employee experiencing personal life problems is unlikely to concentrate and attend to the firm’s business objective. Firm’s which go a step further in establishing personal issues affecting their employees are likely to increase the output of such employees (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). Some firm’s have company counsellors who can help employees to deal with their personal problems. Moreover, other companies have paid life coaching for their employees to help them prosper in their own lives. In addition, firm’s can improve personal lives of their employees by helping out and organizing seminars and workshops where employees can acquire skills for improving their economic lives (Bessant, 2009). This enables employee to better their own lives and this motivates them to carry out their duties with vigour effectively and efficiently (Hursthouse, 1999). This results in increased employee performance. However, many HRM and firms are unwilling to incur more expenses for personal lives of their employees. They even do not care about the prosperity of their employees. They feel that by giving employees information to develop themselves economically, the employees will leave their firm’s to attend to their own personal ventures and hence they have desisted from helping their employees in this perspective (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). Therefore, the employees feel that their employers are uncaring and unconcerned about their lives. The result of this is that the employees work just hard enough not to lose their jobs and they do not realize their full potential. Another aspect that can help employee prosperity is training and development. Even though some firm’s have embraced learning culture, most of these are not geared toward helping the employee realize their full potential or improve on their personal careers. Instead, these training and development are just geared toward partial interests of the firm (Hursthouse, 1999). In addition, some firms even deny their employees chances to go for higher studies to develop their careers with the fear that such employees will demand more pay when they come back or leave the firm altogether (Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2007). They also argue that by being away, the employee will not be utilized by the firm in the production and so they see no need to grant such employees learning opportunities that can ensure personal prosperity of the employees. Many employees today have many things to attend to apart from being at work. Many employers have not embraced the fact that employees require flexible work schedules. As a result, most jobs are rigid with fixed work times (Bessant, 2009). Thus, the inflexibility of the jobs often de-motivates employees from exploiting their full potential. Thus, it is apparent that HRM act unethically because they hinder employee prosperity. Employee character building in HRM learning and development Organization values and character are enhanced by employees and not by fancy adverts and public relations. Furthermore, employee character is inseparable from a firm’s character both in the workplace and externally. Since most employees spend most of their earlier lives pursuing their career objectives and hence, it is the obligation of the firms they work for to support employee character building and instil values professed by the firm publicly. Such support, according to Bessant (2009), can come from training and development. However, many training in firms are geared toward improving the output of employees and not improving their character to conform to what the firm prescribe to publicly. Hursthouse (1999) states that the role of firm’s character is left to the public relations department. It has also been lauded that firms can effectively change the behaviour of their employees by celebrating the kind of behaviour anticipated by the firm. Public praise is one effective way of building employee character that is in line with the firm’s character and values (Christie, Groarke and Sweet, 2008). However, few firms have the willpower to do this. They feel they have no responsibility to instil organization values and character in their employee. Thus, it is true that HRM act unethically because the training and development programs they offer their employees are never geared toward building employee character. Conclusion According to virtues ethics theory Eudemonia is a state variously translated from Greek as ‘well-being’, ‘happiness’, blessedness, and in the context of human ethics ‘human flourishing’. According to Aristotle, a virtuous man knows what he does is virtuous while a good man judges prior to doing the right thing in the right place at the right time in the right way. It is argued that virtues include both character and intellectual virtues. As a consequence of this, the effectiveness of an ethical system is dependent on the nature of the people who employs it. From the discussion above it is true that HRM is not interested in ‘well-being’, ‘happiness’, blessedness, and ‘human flourishing’. However, the discussion indicates that there is some evidence that some successful firms are interested in employee well-being because of its increasing importance in the overall performance of employees. However, in other aspects such as ‘happiness’, blessedness, and ‘human flourishing’, the HRM performs poorly and are uninterested in the promotion of these aspects of virtue ethics. It is evident from the above discussion there is no term such as organization happiness and even some HRM professionals argue that employee happiness is a fad aimed at increasing the firm’s HRM challenges. Most firms learning and development programs are geared toward improving employee performance and none of them supports employee character building. The organization image, character and value are seen as being separate from that of employees. References Berger, I., Cunningham, P., and Drumwright, M. 2007. Mainstreaming Corporate Social Responsibility: Developing markets for virtue. California Management Review, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 132-158 Bessant, J. 2009. Aristotle meets youth work: A case for virtue ethics. Journal of Youth Studies, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 423-438 Caldwell, C., Hayes, L., Bernal, P., and Karri, R. 2008. Ethical Stewardship – Implications for Leadership and Trust. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 78, no. 1-2, pp. 153-164 Caldwell, C., Truong, D., Linh, P., and Tuan, A. 2011. Strategic Human Resource Management as Ethical Stewardship. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 171-182 Christie, T., Groarke, L., and Sweet, W. 2008. Virtue ethics as an alternative to deontological and consequential reasoning in the harm reduction debate. International Journal of Drug Policy, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 52-58 Cornelius, N., Todres, M., Janjuha-Jivraj, S., Woods, A., and Wallace, J. 2008. Corporate Social Responsibility and the Social Enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 355-370 Hursthouse, R. 1999. Virtue Ethics and Human Nature. Human Studies, vol. 25, no. 1-2, pp. 67-82 Neubert, M., Carlson, D., Kacmar, M., Roberts, J., and Chonko, L. 2009. The Virtuous Influence of Ethical Leadership Behaviour: Evidence from the Field. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 157-170 Pellegrino, E. 1995. Toward a Virtue-Based Normative Ethics for the Health Professions. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 253-277 Read More