Hosmers Ethical Theory Issues - Essay Example

Based on the various answers to the 9 vital questions in Hosmer's Ethical theory, I will propound an accurate answer to this question by analysing the three most important and most relevant theories on ethics. I will select the most appropriate answer based on the theories themselves and not my personal opinion.

Hosmer's theory, in a nutshell, states that managers must be morally responsible in other for the following to happen:
- Moral behaviour generates trust among stakeholders.
- Trust leads to stakeholders' commitment.
- Commitments increase stakeholders' efforts and
- Increased stakeholder effort increases corporate success.

In other words, Hosmer's theory bases its arguments on the fact that moral behaviours make a business sound. Hosmer's text, in comparison to Kant, appears to be a managerial text that uses ethics in support of management, thus constituting 'knowledge in the service of power', i.e. ideology. But ethics is not ideology. Ethical philosophy was developed in Greek antiquity by great and renowned philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. They maintain that ethics would; for example, demand that managers, IR experts, and trade unionists be honest, helpful, cooperative, sincere, open, benevolent, and modest. But, Hosmer avoids such a relevant list in his theory (185).

Another challenge for management and its ideological outgrowth of managerialism--comes from utilitarianism theory as discussed by (Johnson, Hosmer, Pogge and Horton). Utilitarian ethics is directed towards creating the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Trade unions (Johnson) and many international organisations (Pogge/Horton) work towards this goal. Management according to (Hosmer, 2008), however, has other goals and agendas which are primarily to make a profit. This sole purpose as an end in itself, rules out this theory as being ethically justifiable (p14), (P4), and (p1-14).

Kant's ethics creates substantial problems for management, but not for trade unions (Johnson) and the international level (Pogge/Horton). Kant's first and foremost categorical imperative is to act universally. This means that whenever someone acts morally, this person should also act as if humanity as a whole was concerned. This is one key area that management writers such as Hosmer, tend to avoid. They either completely avoid these ethical imperatives, or downplay them. Hosmer also diminishes Kant's second imperative, the ‘means-ends dictum’. It is also downplayed by Johnson who sees the Kantian means-ends problem simply to mean, 'managers shouldn't coerce or threaten employees' In reality, Kant's means-ends imperative demands that workers are never treated as a 'means', or as a tool or instrument. According to Kant, a worker represents an 'end in itself' which is the most truth and reality so far as ethics and morals are concerned. Kant's categorical imperatives are 'musts', which have to be strictly adhered to. In essence, either one treats workers as an 'end in themselves' and thereby behaves ethically, or one uses them as a 'means' and behaves unethically, there are no in-betweens. Kant's categorical imperative does not leave room for 'ifs', 'buts', and 'maybes'. Also, one finds that Hegel's ethical concept of Sittlichkeit which is a globally recognized socially constructed ethics; is only discussed by Pogge/Horton. By avoiding Kant's means-ends dictum and Hegel's concept of Sittlichkeit, Hosmer and Johnson have failed to see that the treatment of workers as means renders management and capitalism as a whole, very unethical.