Values and Conflict in Organisations - Kant's Philosophy - Coursework Example

Values and Conflict in Organisations Author Institutional affiliation Outline: 1. Key elements of utilitarianism, Kant"s philosophy and Rawls" contractualism and the strength of each of these approaches in understanding and resolving ethical issues in organisations Utilitarianism Kant"s philosophy Rawls" contractualism 2. Ethical issues in Australian Wheat Boards sales to Iraq 3. Concept of "moral responsibility" with respect to organisations 4. Policies in the human resources department of an organisation which are ethical and morally acceptable Key elements of utilitarianism, Kant"s philosophy and Rawls" contractualism and the strength of each of these approaches in understanding and resolving ethical issues in organisations Utilitarianism The theory of utilitarianism is derived from the philosophical work of James Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism is based on two elements namely: good and right. The philosophers considered what is right to be consequential; the element of pursuing the morally right option leads to achieving what can be viewed as good or best consequence. Any other option that is contrary to taking the morally right option is considered to be wrong. Utilitarians use the term optimific to refer to the alternative option that gives rise to the best consequences; this option is believed to “maximize the good”. From the definition of the term right; it is worth to note that the option that produces good consequences also produce the least bad consequences. As such, there are always right alternatives even if all the available options are associated with bad consequences; there is one that produces the least consequences when compared to the rest. Utilitarians unanimously agree that what is considered good is what that has utility in human beings or their welfare. However, they fail to agree on the definition of human well being or welfare. For instance, classical utilitarians maintained a hedonistic position implying that they believed that the human well being is composed of pleasure (Boatright, 2007). This does not mean that they deny that human well being is composed of wealth creation, community and self empowerment. Instead, they linked these things as a means or associated them with pleasure making them associated to pleasure. As a result of the difficulty associated with measuring and maximizing on this pleasure, majority of utilitarians have maintained this element (Donaldson, Werhane & Cording, 2002). Since utilitarians believe that what is right is the optimific option, they are thus all consequentialists. This implies that they evaluate the existing options in order to come up with the optimific alternative. However, a disagreement arises regarding the things that need to be evaluated in reference to the consequentialist criterion. Such things that need evaluation include individual’s character trait, behaviors and particular actions (Donaldson, Werhane & Cording, 2002). Thus, they base their decision on the assumption that the right action is the one that produces the best consequences. Shaw & Barry (2009) note that in work organisations, high moral intelligence is an important aspect for most of the leaders. Ethical dilemmas are expected in work organisations as a result of existence of two commonly held beliefs. Leaders ought to have values when making decisions on behalf of organisations. Leaders need to have a framework of addressing ethical dilemmas so that they can be in a good position to manage others (Wertheim et al, 2006). Though utilitarianism can be used to help understand and resolve ethical dilemmas, it has its won strength and weakness. For the purpose of making ethical decisions, a trade-off exists between utility, justice and right (Donaldson, Werhane & Cording, 2002). It implies that one of these values has to be sacrificed when an ethical decision is being made. Utilitarianism believes that the right decision made is the one that has good consequences. In such a circumstance, utilitarianism provides a flexible opportunity of determine the right decision. This is strength in that it ensures that every existing option can be evaluated to determine the consequences (Boatright, 2007). In order for an action to be considered to have good consequences, it must have the support of majority of the affected parties. Utilitarianism considers the decision that has good consequences is the right one implying that it recognizes the interest of all the affected parties (Shaw & Barry, 2009). Utilitarianism also help to resolve conflicts of interest since no decision can be considered right unless its consequences are good as determined by all the affected parties. Thus, no individual can determine the right decision in the work environment without coming into consensus with all the affected persons (Boatright, 2007). However, utilitarianism has its own weakness in trying to resolve ethical dilemmas in work organisations. First, there is a possibility that it may ignore the wrongs for the purpose of achieving good consequences. Again, one important value in resolving ethical dilemmas is justice. Utilitarian has a weakness in that it may conflict with justice. For instance, employees in a healthcare organization may decide to go strike demanding a higher salary. In response the government may respond be increasing their salaries by a certain percentage. In this case, the decision to go on strike is the right decision according to utilitarianism since its consequences are good. However, what happens to the patients admitted in hospital? It is clear that justice is denied to these patients since they have not been attended during the time of strike resulting to their conditions deteriorating. Another major weakness associated with utilitarianism is that designing rules in an organisation becomes difficult. Utilitarianism recognizes that the right decision is the one that leads to good consequences. What happens when the decision fails to deliver the right consequences due to other forces? An organisation is forced to review the decision in order to change it. As such, it is not possible to change the rules in an organisation every time it has been suggested. Kant"s philosophy As opposed to the utilitarian theory which looks into consequences, Kant’s theory focuses on what moral actions should be undertaken irrespective of the consequences (Kidder, 2009). According to Kant, moral actions are guided by human dignity, respect, minority protection, and individual rights. Morality is of central focus in this theory as compared to utilitarian theory which downplays moral elements like respect and human dignity. According to Kidder (2009), Kant argues that overall theme of utilitarianism is to convert everything to pleasure and happiness. As such, Kant philosophy’s main focus is to do what is considered morally right irrespective of the consequences. It is for this reason that utilitarian theory is better in solving majority of ethical dilemmas since it is flexible as opposed to Kant theory (Donaldson, Werhane & Cording, 2002). The main focus is to do the right thing no matter whether the consequences but lead to unhappiness. This approach may not be sensible to many people be but Kant raises an issue as to why people should not care for their actions no matter the effects they have on other people. Kant uses an example of a person who plans to do something nice to another person but messes up along the way. According to Kant, morally speaking, the intentions of the person should count since it was hard to predict the outcome (Kidder, 2009). Just like the utilitarian theory, Kant’s philosophy has its own strengths and weaknesses when understanding and resolving ethical dilemmas in work organisations. Beginning with strengths; Kant philosophy is likely to gain support from most people since it values human dignity as a valuable element (Boatright, 2007). For this reason, human dignity is preserved in any organisation since there is a value attached to the life of human beings. The main weakness with this philosophy is that it lacks the flexibility that is required in solving ethical dilemmas. This is because it will always favor human dignity: respect, rights and minority protection over the intended consequences. Rawls" contractualism Rawls focus is on the difference principles that apply in the basic structure of the society. Rawls further add that individuals living within this structure have the right to pursue their permissible end (Shaw & Barry, 2009). In this theory, Rawls stresses on one main element which is the principle of justice for institutions. Rawls argue that each individual in an institution has his own principles which go far beyond their duties in supporting the institution. This implies that the society has its own principles while individual members in the society have their own principles as well. These principles are expected to create stability in the society if they are morally acceptable. In a work organisation, Rawls theory can strengthen the society in a way. If the organisation is ready and willing to support each individual’s principle, then, each individual would feel free to pursue his or her duty in order to positively transform the society (Kidder, 2009). The principle of justice as mentioned by Rawls is also essential since it ensures that every individual in an organisation to feel equal. The needs of the employees in this case are addressed without any form of discrimination. One weakness with this theory is that conflicts may arise among the employees since each employee has personal principles which may differ with one or the rest of the employees (Shaw & Barry, 2009). Ethical issues in Australian Wheat Boards sales to Iraq On October 27, 2005, the United Nations published a report that detailed how the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) had paid $US221.7 million as a kickback to Saddam Hussein government. This was against the United Nations sanctions on Iraq since 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait (Knapp, 2010). The United Nations had imposed sanctions on any country from doing any financial deal with Iraq. But later in 1995 to 2003, the United Nations allowed Iraq to exchange oil for food; medicine and any other humanitarian needs after criticism had emerged on the humanitarian impacts of the sanction. This agreement was reached through a programme referred to as Oil-for-Food. Australian Wheat Board was the government agency that sold wheat from the farmers to foreign markets. Despite the sanction imposed on Iraq, Saddam insisted that companies supplying wheat to Iraq were required to pay some transportation fee to transport their products in Iraq. Australia Wheat Board went on to pay a total of $US221.7 million so that it would supply its wheat to Iraq (Knapp, 2010). Various ethical issues emerge from this deal from the management of AWB. Australia Wheat Board had taken a major risk by breaking the UN sanctions and the Australia law for the purpose of expanding its business. The purpose of Oil-for-Food programme was well known from a humanitarian ground. The programme was meant to ensure that the people suffering in Iraq would access basic commodities like medicines and food. The United Nation had good intention for the purpose of the suffering population but it did not introduce the programme to open up Iraq for business. The Australian Wheat Board can thus be accused of abusing a programme whose intention was to save life (Knapp, 2010). Based on utilitarian theory, the Australia Wheat Board went against the UN sanctions for the good consequences it expected from the deal. It is true that there were many competitors in the market including Canada which declined to pay that fee to Saddam. AWB management thought it wise to pay the fee in order to acquire monopoly in the wheat deal. The management considered paying the amount as the right action since it in turn lead to good consequences. Utilitarian theory judge an action as right based on the good consequences that it results to. Ethically speaking, the act by AWB was wrong since it broke the sanction and the law as well as creating a bad reputation for Australia. Unlike utilitarian theory, Kant’s philosophy focuses on the moral action that should be taken regardless of the consequences (Wertheim et al, 2006). If the managers of the AWB had applied Kant’s philosophy, they would have analyzed the various options in order to determine which was morally acceptable. Before the Oil-for-Food programme was initiated, Australia was still in the market and it had its customers irrespective of the competition. As such, paying kickback to Saddam was not the only option for the AWB. On the contrary, AWB did not focus on human dignity, respect, minority protection and individual’s rights which are the elements of Kant philosophy. The management of AWB was driven by personal interest and greed since the decision was arrived without stakeholders being involved. Being a government agency, the government was a major stakeholder and it ought to have participated in the decision making process. The managers of AWB therefore lacked dignity and respect factors that raised issues as to whether they were qualified to hold public offices. In reference to Rawls" contractualism, AWB as an institution was guided by certain principles. Rawls" contractualism theory support different individuals having differing principles (Wertheim et al, 2006). Organisations also have principles which guide them in their operations. One issue arises when focusing on Australia Wheat Board, did this government agency have principle and was justice done to the principles? Being a state agency, it needed to have acted in compliance with the Australia law as well as the international law but it failed. Each manager in the organisation had his or her own moral principles that would guide them in making decisions. Failure to make use of the moral principles was a sign of failure in the management of the board. Concept of "moral responsibility" with respect to organisations The issue of moral responsibility with respect to organisations has been discussed over a long period of time. Moral responsibility may be used to refer to two means. Firstly, it can mean the quality of organisation behavior. According to this meaning, a responsible organisation is the one whose behaviors are prudent, wise and morally acceptable. The other meaning of this concept is holding an organisation responsible for its action in the same way that an individual should be responsible for his or her actions. According to Wilmot (2004), organisations make decisions which are similar to those made by an individual thus making them to be morally responsible for their actions. Wilmot (2004) further adds that organisations are made up of an internal structure whose role is to organize knowledge and perceptions of individuals in order to come up with an organisational decision. This implies that decisions made by organisations are made up of a team of individuals who share their knowledge and views in order to come up with a collective decision. For the purpose of the future, organisations need to keep records of the decisions made to serve as its memory. Wilmot (2004) argues that when an organisation has an internal structure that is able to organize all the elements of decision making process can even be better than decisions made by individuals on behalf of the organisation. An organisation that is morally responsible has the obligation to do what is good for the purpose of the organisation and the people it is serving. Failure to obey such obligations should call for a justified punishment. The society which the organisation is serving holds the organisation accountable for the decision it makes and the society will determine whether to praise or blame the organisation. For this reason, the organisation has an obligation to do what is good for the people it is serving as well as the institutions that have created the organisations (Knapp, 2010). In the case of Australia Wheat Board sale to Iraq, major issues arise regarding moral responsibility. The Australia Wheat Board had the moral obligation to ensure it sold the wheat it collected from the farmers so that it could purchase more wheat from the farmers. It thus had a moral responsibility to ensure that the Australia wheat was exported so that the farmers would earn their income (Knapp, 2010). However, this did not imply that the Australia Wheat Board should break an international law and the Australia law by engaging in a financial transaction with Iraq. The management board of the organisation was aware that sanctions had been imposed on Iraq and thus giving the kickback to Saddam was a breach of the law. Being a government agency, the AWB had the obligation to respect the Australia law. Australia being a member of the United Nations was thus under obligation to respect the law passed by the United Nations. The Oil-for-Food was a programme initiated by the United Nations on a humanitarian ground and it required that no country would engage in a financial deal with Iraq but instead Iraq oil should be exchanged with goods. AWB decision to pay the transaction cost to Saddam was not a moral decision since it did not focus on the consequences. It therefore appeared that Australia was frustrating the United Nations efforts to control Saddam Hussein who had invaded Kuwait resulting to many deaths. The Australia Wheat Board was thus responsible for the bad image it portrayed to Australia. It is the organisation that is morally responsible since the decision was arrived at collectively by the board members. Policies in the human resources department of an organisation which are ethical and morally acceptable Ethical and moral principles in the human resource department of an organisation are defined by the code of ethics. This is a statement of ethical, behaviors, principles and values that are expected of employees in an organisation. The codes of ethics are meant to guide the employees in resolving some of the ethical issues that may arise while working in the organisation. The human resource department in an organisation is diverse comprising of people from different background, status and power. Employees are expected to respect the rights and the responsibility of fellow employees as well as those of the community that they are serving. For the codes of ethics to be operational, the need to be based on universally accepted ethical principles namely: respect for people, equity and justice, and personal and professional responsibility. Equity and justice are important ethical principles that help an organisation to get rid of internal conflicts. People working in an organisation should be fairly treated without abuse and discrimination. Justice itself as a value addresses issues of power sharing and preventing any form of power abuse (Boatright, 2007). If the voices of all members are heard in an organisation through proper representation, an organisation can make decisions based on the needs of the stakeholders. On the other hand, failure to listen to all parties may result to making unethical decisions which are often opposed by the members. Every employee in an organisation has a personal and professional responsibility to play for the well being of the organisation. This ensures that every employee is responsible of his or her actions so that it may not lead to harm on fellow employees. In doing this, every employee respects the rights of the people and cultural diversity. This ethical principle calls for stewardship of resources for those people in managerial position that that an organisation can have a sustainable future (Boatright, 2007). As such, it is expected that every decision made by an organisation is in accordance with the law and the wish of the people. Failure to this may result to conflicts arising which in turn may lead to an organisational failure. Further, an organisation can strengthen its relationship with the people through corporate social responsibility which ensures that the community acquires benefits realized from the organisation (Wilmot, 2004). ] References Boatright, J. R. (2007). Ethics and the conduct of business (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Donaldson, T., Werhane, P., & Cording, M. (Eds.). (2002). Ethical issues in business: A philosophical approach (7th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kidder, R. (2009). How good people make tough choices: resolving the dilemmas of ethical living. New York: Harper. Knapp, M. (2010). Contemporary Auditing: Real Issues and Cases. New York: Cengage Learning. Shaw, W., & Barry, V. (2009). Moral issues in business (First Asia-Pacific ed.). Australia: Cengage Learning. Wertheim, E., Love, A., Wittlefield, L., & Peck, C. (2006). Skills for resolving conflict (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Erudition Press. Wilmot, S. (2004). Corporate Moral Responsibility: What we can infer from our understanding of organization? Journal of Business Ethics, 30(4):161-169. Read More